23. Article 46(2) of the Convention provides that the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies should not be applicable when: a) the domestic legislation of the State concerned does not afford due process of law for the protection of the right or rights that have allegedly been violated; b) the party alleging the violation of his rights has been denied access to the remedies under domestic law or has been prevented from exhausting them, and c) there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. The Inter-American Court has established that when the State alleges the lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies on the part of the petitioner, it has the burden of proof in showing that the remedies that have not been exhausted are “adequate” to deal with the alleged violation, or in other words the workings of those remedies within the domestic legal system are capable of addressing an infringement of a legal right.11 24. In this case, the State alleges that the petition does not satisfy the requirement of prior exhaustion of remedies in domestic law provided for in Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention since there are criminal proceedings pending on the material facts of the complaint.12 For their part, the petitioners allege that the exceptions to prior exhaustion of domestic remedies provided for under Article 46(2)(c) are applicable to the case due to the delay and inefficiency of the criminal investigation at the national level. 25. The Commission notes that since more than four years have lapsed since the material facts of the complaint took place, the investigation into the crime of forcible displacement initiated by the Public Prosecutor’s office was still at a preliminary stage, and that those responsible have not been identified.13 In this regard, the Commission observes that as a general rule a criminal investigation should be conducted promptly in order to protect the interests of the victims, to preserve evidence, and indeed safeguard the rights of anyone who in the remit of the investigation might be considered suspect. As the Inter-American Court has pointed out, although all criminal investigations should comply with a series of legal requirements, the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies should not lead to international proceedings in support of the victims being held up or delayed so as to become ineffective.14 On the other hand, the information submitted by the State does not specify whether investigations have been initiated into the alleged occupation and destruction of property. 26. Therefore, in view of the characteristics of this case and the time elapsed since the material facts of the petition, the Commission considers that the exceptions provided for under Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention are applicable in view of the delay in carrying out domestic judicial proceedings. For this reason, it is not necessary to meet the requirement provided for the exhaustion of domestic remedies. 27. The invocation of the exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies provided for under Article 46(2)(c) of the Convention is closely linked to the determination of possible violations of certain rights enshrined therein, such as guarantees in the access to justice. However, Article 46(2), by its nature and purpose, is a norm whose content is autonomous vis-à-vis the substantive norms of the Convention. Therefore, the determination as to whether the exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies is applicable to the case in question should be carried out prior to and apart from the analysis of the merits, since it depends on a standard of appraisal different to that used to determine the possible violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. It is necessary to make it clear that the causes and consequences that impeded the exhaustion of domestic remedies will be analyzed in the 11 I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, paragraph 64. Written brief by the State DDH.GOI/60162/2802 received by the IACHR on December 12, 2006. 13 Written brief by the State DDH.GOI/60162/2802 received by the IACHR on December 12, 2006, pages 3-4. 14 I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, paragraph 93.. 12 5