the alleged victim has been denied access to the remedies under domestic law, or if there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. 27. The precedents established by the Commission indicate that whenever an ex officio prosecutable crime is committed, the State is obliged to institute and pursue criminal proceedings and that, in such cases, this is the suitable channel to clarify the facts, prosecute the responsible parties, establish appropriate criminal penalties, and make possible other means of reparation. The facts described by the petitioners concerning the alleged forced disappearance of Jeremías Osorio Rivera, under Peruvian law, constitute criminal actions whose investigation and prosecution should be instituted by the State on its own initiative. 28. On the basis of the information presented up to this stage of the proceedings, the Commission notes that various proceedings were instituted in connection with the alleged forced disappearance of Jeremías Osorio Rivera. First, in May 1991, the brother of the alleged victim, Mr. Porfirio Osorio Rivera, presented a complaint to the Provincial Criminal Court of Cajatambo, which declined jurisdiction and referred it to the military forum. The information presented indicates that the criminal trial pursued under military jurisdiction was dismissed in a final decision of the Supreme Council of Military Justice on February 7, 1996. 29. The Commission has expressed its finding that military jurisdiction does not provide a suitable means of investigating, prosecuting, and punishing violations of human rights allegedly committed by members of the armed forces 3. In addition, the Inter-American Court has stated that military criminal justice constitutes a suitable forum only for prosecuting members of the military for offenses or omissions which, by their nature, violate juridical rights of a military nature4. Thus, for the purposes of the admissibility requirement set forth in Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention, the Commission concludes that the proceeding instituted under military jurisdiction to investigate the alleged forced disappearance of Jeremías Osorio Rivera did not constitute an effective remedy. 30. As for the investigations reopened under ordinary jurisdiction in September 2004, the information provided by the parties indicates that a motion to nullify presented by the civil party is now before the First Provisional Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Corte of Justice and no date has been set for its hearing of the case. 31. In the merits stage the Commission will examine whether, through the proceedings pursued under ordinary and military jurisdiction, the Peruvian State provided a remedy with due guarantees to the relatives of the alleged victim vis-à-vis the obligations set forth in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. However, at the present stage of the proceedings, and without prejudging the merits of the matter, the IACHR finds that the passage of over 19 years since the alleged forced disappearance of Jeremías Osorio Rivera without the determination of his whereabouts, and without a final decision establishing what occurred and punishing all those responsible, is sufficient to conclude that an unwarranted delay has occurred, under the terms of Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention. C. Deadline for presentation of the petition 32. Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention provides that, in order for a petition to be declared admissible, it must have been presented within six months from the date on which the interested party was notified of the final decision that exhausted domestic remedies. This rule does not apply when the Commission finds that any of the exceptions to the exhaustion of domestic remedies enshrined in Article 46(2) of the Convention applies. In such cases, the Commission must determine whether the petition was presented within a reasonable time, in keeping with Article 32 of its Rules of Procedure. 3 IACHR, Report No. 47/08, Petition 864-05, Colombia, Luis Gonzalo “Richard” Vélez Restrepo and family, July 24, 2008, para. 74. 4 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Durand and Ugarte v. Peru Case. Judgment of August 16, of 2000. Series C, No. 68, para. 117; Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile Case. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C, No. 154, para. 131; and Palamara Iribarne v. Chile Case. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C, No. 135, para. 124. 5