31. The information submitted by the parties indicates that while a series of convictions were handed down on July 29, 1990 several of them were reduced or overturned; as regards one of the persons convicted, the case was referred to the military criminal jurisdiction. Even though in 1992 the Public Order Court ordered that the investigation continue to identify and prosecute other participants, the case remained at a virtual standstill until 1997, when it was transferred to the National Human Rights Unit. The Commission notes that despite the advances in collecting evidence and in moving on to the trial phase against two civilians, there has been no further progress in prosecuting the state agents allegedly involved in the massacre. 32. As indicated supra, the investigation referring to the alleged participation of a member of the Army–specifically Lt. Luis Enrique Andrade–was referred to the military criminal courts. In this respect, it should be noted that the Commission has repeatedly held that the military jurisdiction is not an appropriate forum and therefore does not offer an adequate remedy to investigate, prosecute, and punish violations of human rights enshrined in the American Convention, allegedly committed by members of the official forces, or with their collaboration or acquiescence.16 The State also indicated that the activity of the civilian party in the proceeding had been scant and that this element had contributed to the prompt clarification of the facts, which would be another reason for considering the period transpired as reasonable. The IACHR has noted, in similar cases, that whenever a crime is committed that can be prosecuted at the state’s initiative, the state has the obligation to move the criminal proceeding forward to its ultimate consequences.17 Accordingly, the victims or their next-of-kin cannot be required to assume the task of exhausting domestic remedies when this is a duty of the state. 33. The Commission considers that, as a general rule, a criminal investigation should be carried out promptly to protect the interests of the victims, preserve the evidence, and even safeguard the rights of any person who, in the context of the investigation, may be considered a suspect. As the Inter-American Court has indicated, while every criminal investigation must meet a series of legal requirements, the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies should not lead to a situation in which international action on behalf of the victims is brought to a standstill or delayed until it is rendered useless. In the present case, the Commission considers that the judicial remedies invoked by the State must be examined in the terms of the exceptions to the prior exhaustion requirement provided for at Article 46(2)(a) and (c) of the American Convention. 34. Finally, the IACHR would like to note that its considerations with respect of judicial delay, the ineffectiveness of the domestic proceedings, and the inadequacy of the remedies pursued in the investigation are grounded in the notion raised by the State itself, that the clarification of the La Rochela massacre is of special significance, in a sense unlike other matters pending before the IACHR or before the domestic courts. In effect, the powerful symbolism of the assassination of judicial officers as they were performing their duties does not escape the IACHR; far from justifying more than ten years of discontinuous efforts to bring the persons responsible –both private persons and state agents– to justice, this case cries out for the effectiveness that is needed to restore the confidence of the very members of the judiciary and society as a whole in the judicial system. 35. Therefore, given the characteristics of the instant case, the Commission considers that the exceptions provided for at Article 46(2)(a) and (c) of the American Convention apply, and therefore the requirement regarding the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies is not applicable. Nor does the six-month term provided for at Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention Objections, Judgment of September 3, 1998 para. 31; Durand and Ugarte Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of May 28, 1999 para. 33. 16 IACHR, Third Report on the Human Rights Situation in Colombia (1999), p. 175; Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Colombia (1993), p. 246; Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Brazil (1997), pp. 40-42. In addition, the Inter-American Court has recently confirmed that the military justice system is an adequate forum for trying members of the military only for crimes or offenses which by their very nature assail legal interests particular to the military order. Durand and Ugarte Case, Judgment of August 16, 2000 para. 117. 17 Report Nº 62/00, Case 11.727, Annual Report IACHR, para. 24. 7