46 Instance issued a decision on April 19, 1996, in compliance with the decision of the Constitutional Chamber. 137. However, on May 27, 1998, the Chalatenango Court of First Instance issued a decision resolving to file the criminal case file. Among the grounds for this decision, it indicated that “the instant proceeding [had been] totally reviewed and [as it had not been] established who had abducted the minors, it was filed.” On February 16, 1999, the Asociación Pro-búsqueda and CEJIL, representing the alleged victims and their next of kin, lodged a petition before the Inter-American Commission. On April 14, 1999, the Commission requested the State to provide information on the pertinent part of the petition. 138. At this point, the Court considers that it is necessary to emphasize that when the petitioners submitted the petition to the Commission, the criminal proceeding had been filed. Subsequently, when the petition was being processed before the Commission, the criminal investigation was re-opened. The formal re-opening of the proceeding does not appear in the case file; however, the proceeding was activated with a communication from the prosecutor dated May 17, 1999, requesting a complete certification of the case file on the “instruction of the superior prosecutor, so that a more detailed and thorough examination of [this] case could be carried out.” On June 24, 1999, the prosecutor in charge of the investigation was substituted by another. 139. On February 25, 2000, the State submitted a brief to the Commission stating that this case could not be admitted, because “the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies had not been complied with” and providing information on “Criminal Proceeding No. 112.93, which is being processed in the Chaletanango court of first instance […] for […] the crime of deprivation of liberty of the minors, Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano.” On April 5, 2000, the petitioners submitted their comments on the communication of February 25, 2000, regarding the alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies. They stated that “the petitioners ha[d] presented specific proposals to guide the investigation towards other areas, which had been duly transferred to the prosecutor responsible for the investigation,” because “the only measure taken in [nine months, after the case had been re-opened following the Commission’s notification of the petition filed against El Salvador, was] to request the International Committee of the Red Cross […] to advise who these minors had been delivered to.” 140. On February 23, 2001, the Commission adopted Report Nº 31/01, deciding to declare the case admissible and applying the exception to the exhaustion of domestic remedies established in Article 46(2)(c) of the Convention, on the basis that “[u]p until the date on which the report was adopted, domestic remedies had not operated with the effectiveness required to investigate a complaint on forced disappearance […. It indicated that] almost eight years ha[d] elapsed since the first complaint was filed before the authorities of El Salvador, and up until the date of the adoption of the […] report, the way the facts had occurred had not been definitively established.” 141. Regarding the alleged “Justified delay in the corresponding decision” of the criminal proceeding, the Court finds no reason to re-examine the Commission’s reasoning when it decided on the admissibility of the case, because this reasoning is compatible with the relevant provisions of the Convention and, consequently, it rejects the preliminary objection filed by the State.