15 38. Therefore, the Court rejects the preliminary objection of lack of competence of the Court to rule on Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará in relation to this contentious case. B. Preliminary objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies B.1) Arguments of the parties and the Commission 39. The State indicated that it understood that the “domestic remedies […] had not yet been exhausted,” because “criminal proceeding [No.] 105–2002 […] was still active. It explained that “[t]he second paragraph [of Article 46 of the Convention] establishes the circumstances in which the requirement [of exhaustion of domestic remedies] is not applicable,” and that the respective presumptions are not present in this case. In this regard, it affirmed: (a) “the situation described in Article 46(2)(a) does not arise in this case because Guatemala has domestic legislation establishing the legal procedure to protect the violated rights”; (b) the “situation included in Article 46(2)(b) […] does not arise either because […] the victim’s next of kin were never denied access to exercise the remedies before the domestic courts, and (c) regarding the presumption under Article 46(2)(c), there has not been an unwarranted delay because, “since no pre-trial detention or substitutive measures were ordered during the investigation stage, it has no time limit.” The State also indicated that “numerous measures have been taken to clarify the facts,” and that “it is sufficient to observe and analyze these measures […] to conclude that, at no time, has there been […] negligence, unwarranted delay or lack of diligence by the investigating body.” In this regard, the State indicated that “the Public Prosecution Service has continued its inquiries, but cannot bring charges if it does not obtain convincing evidence or indications,” and pointed out that, “on different occasions, the judge has requested the Public Prosecution Service to issue the relevant decision ending the investigation, and the latter has asked that the investigation remain open in order to achieve positive results.” The State noted that, to conclude that there had not been an unwarranted delay, the investigation should be evaluated based on the criteria used by the Court to assess the reasonableness of the duration of domestic proceedings.25 Lastly, it asserted that, if there was an unwarranted delay, the law established ways for “the victims […] to deal with this circumstance,” and these were not used.26 costs. Judgment of August 30, 2010. Series C No. 215, operative paragraphs 3 and 7; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010. Series C No. 216, operative paragraphs 3 and 6; Case of the Río Negro Massacres, supra, operative paragraph 6; Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 25, 2012. Series C No. 252, operative paragraph 7, and Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (Diario Militar), supra, operative paragraph 5. Moreover, with regard to Guatemala, in the above-mentioned cases of the Río Negro Massacres and Gudiel Álvarez (Diario Militar), the State did not contest the Court’s competence in relation to Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará. Paragraph 17 in the two judgments indicates that, in the said cases, Guatemala acknowledged its responsibility for the violation of this article of that treaty. 25 In this regard, the State indicated that the Court has referred to the pertinence of considering “three elements to determine the reasonableness of the duration […]: “(a) the complexity of the matter; (b) the procedural activity of the interested party, and (c) the conduct of the judicial authorities.” 26 The State explained that, “Decree 7-2011 of the Congress of the Republic” amended “Decree No. 51-92 of the Congress of the Republic, Code of Criminal Procedure: ‘Article 5. A second paragraph is added to article 108, which shall read as follows: In the exercise of its functions, and no more than fifteen (15) days after having received the complaint, the Public Prosecution Service shall inform the victim of the measures that have been taken and about the possible decision. The victim who is not informed within this time frame may have recourse to the judge so that the latter may urgently require that, within forty-eight hours, the prosecutor report to him on the progress made in the proceedings. If, from this report, or when it has not been provided, the judge considers that the preparation of the criminal action is insufficient, he shall order the prosecutor to report on additional progress within thirty (30) days at the most or, if not, on the circumstances that prevent the latter from making further progress in the investigation, on pain of his non-compliance being reported to the disciplinary regime of the Public Prosecution Service, and constituting a serious offense.’” (In italics in the original.)