indeed unwarranted, the petitioners did not take legal action in the courts of the Republic to have the public prosecutors’ offices ordered to investigate each specific case and set deadlines for completion of the investigations. 63. The petitioners state that in accordance with Article 313 of the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure,7 the public prosecutor in the Attorney General’s Office must seek to complete the preparatory stage with the due diligence the case requires. This standard also grants the alleged perpetrator the right to request an oversight judge to establish a deadline of no more than 120 days for completion of the investigation, provided that six months have passed since the identification of the alleged perpetrators. 64. The petitioners maintain that, in addition to the provisions of Article 23 of that Code 8 “90 days would be more than enough time for the persons responsible to be identified and charged.” The petitioners argue that the Attorney General’s Office is unwilling to carry out the investigations and that a reasonable deadline for the investigation should be no longer than 180 days. The petitioners claim that the original report to the Attorney General’s Office was submitted on January 31, 2002 and that there has been no conclusive action taken to date despite the fact that the information they provided allegedly identifies a number of persons involved in the acts under investigation. The petitioners point out that Venezuelan law requires public prosecutors in the Attorney General’s Office to take criminal action 9 under the law or be sanctioned for failure to do so. 10 It is therefore the Attorney General’s Office, through its public prosecutors, that has the monopoly of criminal action, direction, supervision of the police and completion of the investigation. 65. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention requires exhaustion of domestic remedies in accordance with generally accepted principles of international law. The jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights states that the mere submission of information on the progress of domestic judicial processes is not equivalent to expressly invoking the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies.11 66. The Commission notes that in light of the insufficient information provided by the State regarding the failure to exhaust domestic remedies and the fact that the State was granted a further opportunity to submit additional comments, on October 16, the IACHR submitted a letter to the State requesting that it provide specific and detailed information on the action taken by the Attorney General’s Office regarding the criminal complaints being processed. It also requested that the State explicitly report on the domestic remedies available to the 7 Article 313 of the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure, Chapter III. Progress of the Investigation, establishes: Article 313. Duration. The Attorney General’s Office will try to complete the preparatory stage with the due diligence the case requires.Six months after the identification of the accused, the latter may request that an oversight judge set a prudential deadline of no less than 30 days and no more than 120 days for completing the investigation.To set that deadline, the judge must hear the Attorney General’s Office and the accused and take into consideration the scope of the damages caused, the complexity of the investigation, and any other circumstances that, in the judge’s opinion, would help reach an outcome in the process. Exceptions to this rule are cases of crimes against humanity, against public property, human rights issues, war crimes, drug trafficking and related crimes. 8 Article 23 of the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure states:Article 23. Protection of victims. The victims of punishable events have the right of recourse to agencies that administer criminal justice at no cost, expeditiously, and without undue delay or useless formalities, without prejudice to the rights of the plaintiffs or defendants. Protection of the victims and the compensation to which they are entitled for the damage are also the subject of criminal procedures.Officials who fail to process reports by victims in a timely manner and with due diligence and who compromise their right of access to justice shall be subject to the punishments assigned in the respective Code of Conduct to be issued for that purpose, and any other legal instrument. 9 Numerals 1 and 2 of Article 198 of the Organic Code of Criminal Procedure states:Article 108. Functions and Powers of the Attorney General’s Office. In the criminal procedure, the Attorney General’s Office shall:1. Direct the investigation of the punishable acts and the investigation activity of police agencies to establish the identity of the perpetrators and their accomplices;2. Order and supervise the action taken by the investigating police agencies regarding the collection and preservation of evidence for conviction. 10 The petitioners cite Article 85 of Anti-Corruption Law, which states:Public prosecutors or representatives of the Attorney General’s Office who deliberately do not file legal appeals, fail to take criminal or civil action, or to take the legal steps necessary to discover the truth, following proper procedures, in compliance with procedural deadlines, and respecting due process shall be punished with imprisonment for two to four years. 11 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community Case. Judgment of February 1, 2000, paras. 55 and 56. 12