6 as an existing remedy that has not been exhausted by the alleged victims. On the other hand, during the processing of the case before the Commission, the State alleged the lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies by referring, specifically, to a procedure of habeas corpus and a criminal investigation conducted by the Office of the Fifth Provincial Prosecutor of Callao.7 17. In this way, when the Inter-American Commission adopted the Report on Admissibility and Merits Nº 85/07 on October 16, 2007, it noted that the " petitioners have adopted an active role since the allegedly forced disappearance of the young Kenneth Anzualdo, by taking judicial actions as well as other private actions”, which was described. It considered that the injured party “tried to file all the available remedies” in order to shed light on the alleged forced disappearance of Mr. Anzualdo Castro and that “after more than thirteen years" [of such incident], the State “ha[d] not tried and punished the responsible.” It deemed that the “application of the exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies provided in Article 46(2) of the Convention is closely linked to the determination of possible violations of certain rights enshrined therein, such as the guarantee to have access to justice […]; it pointed out that the "causes and effects that have impeded the exhaustion of the domestic remedies in this case" shall be analyzed in the merits and, therefore, it considered that "there were sufficient evidence to exonerate the petitioner from the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies by application of Article 46(2)(b) and (c) of the American Convention.”8 18. As it spring from the body of evidence (infra para. 127), prior to the investigation mentioned by the State, several investigations have been conducted at the domestic level in relation to the alleged forced disappearance of Mr. Anzualdo Castro. In this sense, two different phases can be distinguished: on the one hand, the first investigations opened in 1993, and on the other hand, the other investigations conducted as of the year 2002. In the first phase, between December 1993 and February 1994, the next-of-kin of Mr. Anzualdo filed a first criminal complaint with the prosecution office and another complaint with the Investigation Department of Disappeared people of the National Police of Peru, a complaint with the Office of the Special Prosecutor of Public Defense and Human Rights, and a writ of habeas corpus. In the second phase, as of the year 2002, the next-of-kin filed a request to reopen the investigations before the Office of the Special Provincial Prosecutor on Forced Disappearances, Extrajudicial Executions and Clandestine Graves; they were involved 7 According to what spring from the case file of the processing before the Commission, the petition was received on May 27, 1994 and on September 27 that same year, the pertinent copy of the petition was transmitted to the State and the State, in turn, was requested to forward any evidence that would allow assessing whether the remedies have been exhausted at the domestic level. In its response, presented in November 1994, Peru forwarded a certified copy of the case- file of the habeas corpus proceeding instituted to determine the whereabouts of Mr. Anzualdo Castro. In an official letter appendixed to that communication, the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy indicated to the Ministry of Defense that "the petitioner has not exhausted all the remedies available at the domestic level.” In another communication, it forwarded a report of December 23, 1997 from the National Human Rights Council, in which the State mentioned a criminal investigation instituted before the Office of the Fifth Provincial Prosecutor of Callao and held that “the complaint of the petitioner was filed, registered and communicated to the Peruvian State on [September] 27, 1994 when there were still remedies available at the domestic level", since the complaint against the decision that determined to provisionally close the investigation was submitted on October 27, 1994, “therefore, the petition before the Commission must be declared to be inadmissible.” The Court notes that at the moment of the filing of the petition before the Commission, the first of the two remedies has already been declared inadmissible and, regarding the second one, five days after, the investigation was provisionally closed. See Appendix 1 of the application: IACHR, Report on Admissibility and Merits Nº 85/07, case 11.385, Kenneth Ney Anzualdo Castro of October 16, 2007, para. 47-49 and 52-64 and Appendix 2 of the application (record of evidence, volume II, pages 76, 137 and 183). 8 Appendix 1 of the application: IACHR, Report on Admissibility and Merits Nº 85/07, case 11.385, Kenneth Ney Anzualdo Castro of October 16, 2007, paras. 60 and 63.