is to consider the arguments submitted by the State in order to determine whether the Commission’s actions produced a violation of its right to defense. 39. As for the alleged irreparable defects in the process due to the erroneous arguments advanced in the Admissibility Report regarding the exhaustion of appropriate, effective remedies in the domestic jurisdiction, the Count has seen that the Commission’s analysis distinguished between the process undertaken in the military courts and the investigations and processes in the ordinary courts, “with respect to the prospects for effectiveness.” Thus, with respect the the process begun in the military courts, the Commission found that it was not the appropriate forum, and consequently, did not provide an appropriate remedy. 30 It was therefore unnecessary to determine whether it was effective, given that it was a remedy that did not need to be exhausted. 40. The Commission noted, regarding the proceedings conducted in the ordinary courts, that, although the case against Vladimiro Montesinos Torres and others was in the examination stage, “a case could yet be made for failure to exhaust remedies under domestic law,” but that the investigation did not seem to suggest that the domestic remedy might be effective. This was because the process for handling case evidence had culminated in dismissal of the case against the accused on grounds that they were acting on court orders. In this regard, the Commission noted, in a criminal investigation of this nature, the “preservation [of the crime scene], the [handling of] the bodies, autopsy procedures–which must meet international standards–and the chain of custody of the evidence gathered, are functions that, in combination with other investigative procedures, are essential to establish what happened and to identify the authors.” The Commission therefore concluded that “the absence of all this activity at the time and, worse still, the measures these State agents allegedly took to hide the facts, combined with the amount of time that passed before these facts were uncovered, does not augur well for the effectiveness of the domestic remedy to meet the requirement established in Article 46(2) of the American Convention.” 31 41. Thus, the Commission implicitly questioned whether the criminal process in the ordinary jurisdiction was a suitable remedy when it held that, because the process was still ongoing, it could constitute a failure to exhaust domestic remedies. The Commission could not have drawn this conclusion without asserting that the ordinary jurisdiction, unlike the military courts, was the proper place for investigating the facts of the case. The Court clearly believes that the Commission’s procedure in reviewing the effectiveness of the remedy presupposes its view that this remedy was suitable. 42. The next argument is that Commission’s analysis of the objections of failure to exhaust domestic remedies under Article 46(2) of the Convention was flawed. The Court would reply that the State did not clearly identify the serious error that had breached its right to defense, In this regard, the Commission maintained that “on October 15, 2003, the Chamber of the Supreme Council of Military Justice dismissed the case against the commandos, who had been charged with violation of international law, abuse of authority and qualified homicide. It did so on the grounds that the presence of a crime and the guilt of the accused had not been proved. The Inspector General of the Superior Council of Military Justice has had that ruling under review since November 30, 2003.” It added, “the investigation and prosecution of Army personnel in the military justice system for the events related to the alleged executions of Eduardo Nicolás Cruz Sánchez, Herma Luz Meléndez Cueva and David Peceros Pedra, [was] not an adequate remedy for ascertaining their responsibility in the serious violations denounced, in the sense of Article 46(1) of the American Convention Admissibility Report No. 13/04 by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, February 27, 2004, paras. 58 and 59 (case file of the proceedings before the Commission, volume III, folios 1624 to 1625). 30 Admissibility Report No. 13/04 by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, February 27, 2004, paras. 60 and 61 (case file of the proceedings before the Commission, volume III, folio 1625). 31