31. Furthermore, the State dismisses the petitioners’ allegations as to the ineffectiveness and unsuitability of the remedies of inapplicability and cassation, on procedural grounds and on the merits. It argues in this regard that “legally, procedural efficacy is not measured by the number of remedies pursued, denied, or accepted, but by how they have been conceived by the law.”13 The State notes that the inapplicability remedy may be pursued at any time before the Supreme Court and that it is a “special remedy of the utmost usefulness and procedural and judicial efficacy.” 32. The Inter-American Commission notes that the requirement established in Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention refers to the exhaustion of available judicial remedies that are adequate and effective for solving the alleged violation of human rights. As the Inter-American Court has reiterated on several occasions, if in a specific case the remedy is not suitable for restoring the legal interest infringed and capable of producing the result for which it was designed, it is obvious that one need not exhaust it.14 33. In the matter submitted to the IACHR, even though he alleged the lack of impartiality of the military courts, Mr. Palamara Iribarne’s representative recurred to the available fora and pursued, to its conclusion, the desacato proceeding instituted by the naval authorities. The complaint appeal with which that proceeding culminated, according to the information in the record, considered the possibility of the Supreme Court of Chile overturning the guilty verdict against Mr. Palamara Iribarne, and of a declaration sua sponteas to the inapplicability of the criminal provision on desacato that the petitioners argue violates the alleged victim’s human rights. The possibility that the highest judicial organ in Chile might take up the issue of inapplicability sua sponte is mentioned expressly by the Chilean State when it describes that remedy (supra 26). Furthermore, it has been seen above that the petitioners provided ample statistical information to support their arguments. 34. The Inter-American Commission observes that the Chilean State did not dispute the official documentation or the doctrine invoked by the petitioners, but that it repeated its position regarding the suitability of the other remedies not pursued in Mr. Palamara Iribarne’s case, based on its legal view. 35. The IACHR believes that the complaint appeal--in its legal conception and in its interpretation and application by the Chilean courts--was suitable to solve the situation alleged by the petitioners, who pursued it in the time and manner provided for in Chilean domestic law. In addition, the petitioners allege that the Supreme Court had full and broad powers to declare the inapplicability of the law questioned in the context of the complaint appeal. In effect, Article 80 of the Chilean Constitution provides: The Supreme Court, sua sponte or upon request by a party, in the matters that come before it, or that are submitted to it in a motion filed in any proceeding before any other court, may declare inapplicable for those particular cases any law contrary to the Constitution. This remedy may be invoked at any stage of the proceeding, and the Court may order the proceeding suspended. 36. The Chilean State had several opportunities to cure the alleged violation of the fundamental rights of Mr. Palamara Iribarne in the procedure identified as case No. 471 on desacato, in particular when the issue was raised before the highest court through the complaint appeal. In view of the foregoing, it would not be reasonable to impose on the petitioners in this matter the burden of exhausting the additional remedies that the Chilean State identified. The IACHR concludes that the judgment handed down by the Supreme Court 13 Id., p. 3. See, e.g., Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Exceptions to the Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies (Arts. 46(1), 46(2)(a), and 46(2)(b) of the American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-11/90 of August 10, 1990, para. 36 14 7