procedure being brought against them; ii) that the alleged victims did not file an appeal for extraordinary review of the final judgments; and iii) that the alleged victims did not denounce the purported acts of torture in a timely fashion, nor did they present pertinent evidence in regard to the matter. 52. For his part, the petitioner argued that the alleged victims were unable to denounce the alleged acts of torture for two reasons: i) they were threatened by police authorities to keep them from reporting the abuse against them; and ii) they were held in solitary confinement for three months. 53. In order to determine compliance with the requirement for exhaustion of domestic resources, it is up to the Commission to establish which remedy is relevant for each specific case, understanding such to be the remedy that can address the legal situation that has been infringed. The Commission considers that the principal purpose of the claim filed involves the practice, on the part of police and prosecutors, of allegedly conducting illegal raids on the dwellings of the alleged victims, along with inflicting them with acts of excessive violence, torture, and solitary confinement so they would incriminate themselves. In this respect, in cases in which violations of the right to humane treatment are alleged, the Inter-American Court and Commission have repeatedly affirmed that the appropriate mechanism to investigate and, where applicable, punish those responsible and repair the victims’ relatives where the perpetrators are State agencies is through a criminal investigation, which should be undertaken ex officio by the States and carried out with due diligence so that it can be considered effective. 4 54. In particular, in terms of excessive use of force on the part of State agents, the Court has stated that: Whenever the use of force caused the death or injuries to one or more people, the State should give a satisfactory and convincing explanation of the events and rebut the allegations related to its liability, by means of adequate evidence.5 55. The Commission notes that the State contended that the alleged victims did not denounce the supposed acts of torture in a timely manner. Moreover, the State indicated that once a first-instance judgment had been issued, on March 16, 2003, the records were sent to the Public Ministry for an investigation into the acts of torture insinuated during the trial by those convicted. The State emphasized that the victims did not provide evidence in this investigation to support their allegations. 56. The Commission notes that since the alleged victims were detained, different State authorities, including the court with jurisdiction over the arrest, knew about the alleged acts of torture that were committed at the time of the arrest and subsequently. In fact, the file shows that various communications media broadcast photos of the alleged victims in which they were obviously battered, as well as reports by the then-Ombudsman about the purported use of excessive force in this case and about those arrested being held incommunicado. The file further shows that since the hearing on precautionary measures, held on December 19, 2001, one day after the 4 See, for example: I/A Court H.R., Ximenes Lopes Case. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C, No. 149, para. 148; I/A Court H.R., Baldeón García Case. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C, No. 147, pars. 92 and 93; IACHR, Report No. 14/04, Case 11.568, Luís Antonio Galindo Cárdenas, Peru, February 27, 2004, para. 41; IACHR, Report No. 24/04, Petition 723/01, Tirso Román Valenzuela Avila, Guatemala, February 26, 2004, pars. 30 and 31; IACHR, Case No. 11.509, Manuel Manríquez, Mexico. Report No. 2/99 of February 23, 1999, para. 58. 5 I/A Court H.R., Montero Aranguren et al. Case. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C, No. 150, para. 80. 9