44 years after the abduction and 11 [years] after the criminal complaint was filed, not a single person has been investigated, […] prosecuted or punished”; and e) The remedy of habeas corpus, indicated by the Court as appropriate in cases of forced disappearance was generally ineffective when the facts occurred, as affirmed by the expert witness, David Morales, and this is supported by the documentary evidence provide by the Commission. This “direct, immediate, very brief [remedy, …] does not signify the exhaustion of any complaint that could be filed” subsequently. It may be filed before “the case on merits has commenced, during the case, or even when judgment has been delivered.” In this regard, habeas corpus does not exhaust the domestic jurisdiction. Arguments of the representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin 131. The representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin requested the Court to reject the objection filed by the State, because it lacked the “essential requirement” to be filed. In this regard, the representatives alleged that: a) The objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies “was not filed in accordance with the parameters of the inter-American system.” The State did not indicate opportunely the domestic remedies that should be exhausted, nor did it prove their effectiveness. During the proceeding before the Commission, the State submitted three briefs, in which it merely requested that the case be closed, based on the existence of pending procedures in the criminal proceeding. However, it did not indicate that the criminal proceeding was appropriate to determine the whereabouts of the alleged victims; b) According to Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, the Commission is empowered to determine the admissibility of a petition and to decide on the exhaustion of domestic remedies. When this proceeding has been carried out, and in order to ensure legal certainty and procedural security, the principle of procedural preclusion should take effect. In accordance with the principle of legal certainty, the Court’s power to review in toto all the Commission has done and decided should be exceptional. The representatives requested the Court to validate the Commission’s Report on admissibility No. 31/01. The State is attempting to return to a discussion that had already been decided by the Commission when determining that the petition was admissible; and c) Criminal action 113/02, open since 1993, has been filed on three occasions, even though there were procedures pending. The judge in charge of the case stated that “she had nothing to examine in the case and that no one was interested in it, because the mother of the children had died, that the case was now in the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court, that it was the Court that was trying the State, that […] she was activating the case based on the prosecutor’s request to carry out procedures designed to defend the State before the Inter-American Court, and would then file it, because there [was] nothing to be done.” Considerations of the Court