beyond the preliminary investigation stage after more than seven years since the events occurred. 44. Moreover, the IACHR observes that the last action filed in the case was on October 24, 2005. Furthermore, on this date, many steps repeatedly requested by the Seventh Prosecutorial Unit had yet to be performed, specifically the reconstruction of the facts, the planimetric survey, and ballistics and trajectory analysis. 45. The Commission also notes that significant perspectives of effectiveness do not exist in the investigation of Néstor José’s death, since even the officials in charge of the investigation recognized that the wet and poor state of the evidence made impossible their identification and study, due to having remained for so long in an evidence warehouse without the basic conditions of preservation and conservation. Additionally, the Commission considers that the case does not have special complexity, given that it concerns a single victim 10 executed in circumstances in which the police officials participating in the procedure were fully identified. 11 46. The Venezuelan State did not challenge the petitioners’ description of how the investigation has been conducted. The State also did present arguments to justify the delay in the progress of the investigations. Therefore, the Commission considers that the State did not satisfy the burden of proof on the effectiveness of the domestic remedies when the petitioner alleges some of the exceptions of Article 46.2 of the Convention. 47. Finally, the file demonstrates Mr. Luís Uzcátegui, in representation of his family, has participated actively in this case, requesting steps to be taken and denouncing the delay in carrying out the investigation. In this sense, the Commission deems that the alleged victim’s relatives have carried out the actions within their reach in the search for justice in the framework of an investigation to be undertaken by the State on its own motion. 48. The Commission considers that the aforementioned elements are sufficient to conclude that there has been an unjustified delay in the criminal investigation of the facts surrounding Néstor José Uzcátegui’s death. The petitioners are therefore exempted from the requirement of exhausting the domestic remedies, as established in Article 46.2.c of the Convention. b. With respect to the alleged acts of aggression, death threats, and harassment against Luís Uzcátegui 49. According to the available information, on December 2, 2002, an investigation was initiated on the threats and acts of harassment denounced by Mr. Luís Uzcátegui, including the alleged arbitrary and illegal detentions and searches. Since then the Commission has observed that other similar acts have occurred and, as indicated by the petitioners and not challenged by the State, were denounced within the framework of the aforementionedinvestigation. As regards the file on the petition as well as the follow-up undertaken by the IACHR on the provisional measures on behalf of Luís Uzcátegui, the investigations still remain in the preliminary stage and have not even identified or charged the possible responsible parties. 50. As regards the description by the petitioners, the investigation has been at a standstill since November 9, 2005, date on which a CICPC official indicated to a representative of one of the petitioning organizations that there are still no results from the investigations required by the First Prosecutorial Unit at the end of 2004. 51. The State did not submit allegations on the possible complexity of the investigation, which would not seem to be particularly difficult since there are eyewitnesses for many of the acts and Mr. Luís Uzcátegui has identified his alleged aggressors on the different occasions he made statements. In any case, as mentioned in the previous paragraph, the reason for the delay does not seem to be the complexity of the case, rather to the contrary the alleged lack of diligence by the authorities in charge of the investigation. 10 I/A Court H.R., Case Baldeón García. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 152. 11 IACHR, Report No. 23/07, Eduardo José Landaeta Mejías, et al., Petition 435-2005, Admissibility, para. 45, March 9, 2007. 10