16. The State reported that it raised the exception of failure to exhaust domestic remedies during the admissibility stage of the case through its brief of March 5, 2014, in which it emphasized that the criminal proceedings against E.G.A. had to be exhausted in all its instances. It added that this process was ongoing and the accused was in contempt of court. It highlighted that, until the accused’s escape, the process was undertaken with due diligence and the judicial remedies filed by the parties were effectively addressed. It pointed out that, on the contrary, the representatives, Brisa and her parents “obstructed the State’s work, taking into account that they requested actions undertaken to apprehend the accused and did not return them to the Court as appropriate,17 and instead, decided to withdraw from the process to go directly before the [Inter-American] System [...], despite [the fact that] domestic law has an ideal remedy to protect the infringed legal situation, such as the extradition of the accused, as is being managed ex officio."18 17. Bolivia stated that the alleged victim, her parents or her legal representatives, as appropriate, (i) “dismissed” the medical and psychological assistance of the State’s specialized institutions, going “directly” to private doctors and psychologists; (ii) they did not report the medical personnel to the Public Prosecutor’s Office or the competent judicial body for the alleged impacts on Brisa's legal rights; (ii) they did not request a change19 or recusal of the Prosecutor, nor did they file a disciplinary or criminal complaint against her, and (iii) they did not report the alleged threats and harassment for investigation or disciplinary measures despite the “extensive body of resources that could be effective to correct the alleged legal infringement upon Brisa, in the face of the alleged interrogations and threats of the [P]rosecutor. 18. The Commission observed that the State presented the aforementioned objection in the admissibility stage, however, it recalled that it had concluded that the objection provided for in Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention was applicable. Given the above and that (i) the sexual violence was reported in July 2002 and, on the date of issue of the Admissibility Report, there was no conviction and, (ii) although the accused was declared in contempt of court on October 28, 2008, it was not until February 28, 2014, that the Public Prosecutor's Office requested a report from INTERPOL on the actions taken to capture him. The Commission considered that the reiteration of said preliminary objection before the Court is not appropriate for the following reasons: (i) the unjustified delay in the domestic proceedings that makes the exception provided for in Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention applicable;20 (ii) the excessive delay of the criminal proceedings is not attributable to the complexity of the matter or to the procedural activity of the alleged victim or her representatives, but to the conduct of the state authorities, and (iii) it is the duty of the State, and not of the victim, to investigate with due diligence and adopt measures to ensure that the investigation is completed within a reasonable timeframe and that the person responsible effectively serves their sentence. 19. The representatives agreed with the arguments presented by the Commission and indicated that the fact that the third trial against E.G.A. is in progress, but suspended due to his being a fugitive, proves 17 The State reported that the arrest warrant issued against E.G.A on November 6, 2008, was “voluntarily” picked up by the “private prosecutors” for execution, however, it was not returned to the Court. On August 18, 2009, the legal representative of the alleged victim in the domestic process, Leonor Oviedo, requested the extension of an updated arrest warrant in three copies, to which the Court requested that the original arrest warrant, expedited on November 6, 2008, be attached. Subsequent to the Court’s request, the State indicated that the “private prosecutors” stopped promoting and appearing at the criminal proceedings, and “they also did not activate the search and capture mechanisms.” 18 The State indicated that, in accordance with Article 90 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, “no calculation” of prescription is applicable, guaranteeing the continuity of the trial once the extradition of the accused is achieved, which is in progress through the diplomatic channel. 19 The State indicated that the Organic Law of the Public Prosecution (Law No. 2175) establishes in its article 68 the possibility for the “victim” to request before the hierarchical Prosecutor, the replacement of the Prosecutor in charge of the investigation when it is considered that they have not carried out their duties correctly. The Commission noted that, to date, 19 years have passed since the facts were reported and 12 years since the accused’s escape. 20 8