the responsible parties, application of the appropriate criminal penalties, and other monetary forms of reparation. The Commission considers that the facts alleged by the petitioners in this case involve the alleged violation of inalienable basic rights, such as the right to life and humane treatment, which under domestic legislation are offenses that the State must prosecute as its own legal duty. It is therefore this process, set into motion by the State itself that must be considered in order to determine the petition’s admissibility. 58. In this regard, the Commission notes that as a general rule a criminal investigation must be carried out promptly in order to protect the victims’ rights, preserve the evidence, and also to safeguard the rights of every suspect in the context of the investigation. As the InterAmerican Court has stated, although every criminal investigation must comply with a series of legal requirements, the rule of prior exhaustion must never lead to a halt or delay that would render international action in support of the defenseless victim ineffective.51 The InterAmerican Court has also established that in order for a remedy to be considered effective it must be capable of producing the result for which it was designed.52 59. The Commission moreover notes that this case is not particularly complex, given that in principle it concerns two alleged extrajudicial executions in which the alleged material authors have been fully identified.53 In addition, the case file indicates that Eloisa Barrios has taken an active part in the proceedings, seeking their resumption when they were paralyzed, requesting inquiries and forensic tests that she considered indispensable for the investigation, and even filing motions for amparo to demand timely legal action. On this point, the Commission deems that the alleged victims’ family members have exercised the means at their disposal to seek justice in the framework of an investigation that the State itself is responsible for conducting. 60. The Commission notes that the initial facts cited in this case took place on August 28, 1998, and that more than ten years has elapsed since the first extrajudicial execution, without a determination of the legal responsibilities or punishment of the authors of the facts in the petition. In addition, it notes that the investigation into the alleged extrajudicial execution of Rigoberto Barrios that occurred on January 9, 2005—during the processing of this petition— was archived in May 2006 and that there still has been no determination of the legal responsibilities or punishment of the authors of the facts. Finally, as regards the other complaints regarding the alleged illegal arrests and violation of the right to humane treatment, the investigations are incomplete. All of this constitutes an unwarranted delay in the terms of Article 46.2.c of the American Convention, so the petitioners should be exempt from exhausting domestic remedies before they have recourse to the inter-American system in search of protection. 61. The Commission reiterates that invocation of the exceptions to the rule for exhaustion of domestic remedies established in Article 46.2 of the Convention is intimately linked to the determination of possible violations of certain rights guaranteed in the convention, such as the right to a fair trial. However, Article 46.2 of the American Convention, by its nature and scope, is an autonomous norm vis à vis the Convention’s substantive norms. Therefore, determination of whether exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies are applicable in this case must be made first and separately from the analysis of the merits, because it applies a different standard than the one used to determine violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. The causes and effects that have prevented the exhaustion of domestic remedies in this case will be analyzed, as appropriate, in the Commission’s report on the merits of the dispute, to determine if they do in fact constitute violations of the American Convention. 3. Deadline for presentation of the petition 51 I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez. Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987, para. 93. 52 I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez. Judgment of July 29, 1988, para. 66. 53 IACHR, Report No. 23/07, Eduardo José Landaeta Mejías et al., Petition 435-2005, Admissibility, March 9, 2007, para. 45. 11