Inter-American Court and the Inter-American Commission have reaffirmed the obligation of the State to investigate all violations of human rights, to try those responsible, indemnify the victims, and avoid impunity.39 In that connection, the Commission notes that the Convention of Belém do Pará affirms that the obligation to act with the due diligence necessary takes on a special meaning in cases of violence against women. Said instrument also stipulates that the State, in applying due diligence in connection with violent acts, shall take special account of the vulnerability of women subjected to violence and discrimination, among other risk conditions, while of minor age.40 44. The Commission notes that in the instant case, over six years have passed since the alleged sexual abuse of the child aged 9, without conclusion of the criminal investigation. The IACHR also notes that a judgment has yet to be rendered by the Nicaraguan courts in connection with the appeal lodged by the petitioner on August 29, 2005. It also notes that the State has confined itself to alleging that domestic remedies have not been exhausted, but presents no specific information from which it could be concluded that the remedy has the adequacy and effectiveness required by international human rights parameters to resolve in a timely manner the situation denounced. 45. Based on the foregoing considerations and on the information contained in the file, the Inter-American Commission concludes for the purpose of admissibility that there has been unwarranted delay by the competent bodies in rendering a final judgment and that domestic remedies have been ineffective in resolving in a timely manner the situation denounced.Therefore, in the instant case, the IACHR invokes the exception to the exhaustion of domestic resources set forth in Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention. 2. Timeliness of Petition Nicaragua, Annual Report of the IACHR 1997, paras. 96 and 97;IACHR, Report N° 55/97, Case 11.137, Argentina, Annual Report of the IACHR 1997, para. 392. 39 IACHR, Report Nº 94/06, Petition 540-04, Admissibility, Inés Fernández Ortega et al., Mexico, October 21, 2006, para. 23; IACHR, Report Nº 93/06, Petition 972-03, Admissibility, Valentina Rosendo Cantú et al., Mexico, October 21, 2006, para. 27; IACHR, Report N˚ 54/01, Maria Da Penha Maia Fernandes, Brazil, April 16, 2001, para. 43, citing I-A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, Judgment of July 29, 1988, Series C No. 4.,para. 176 and Case of Godínez Cruz, Judgment of January 20, 1989. Series C No. 5, para. 175; IACHR, Merits, N˚ 53/01, Ana, Beatriz and Celia González Pérez, Mexico, April 4, 2001, para. 84. 40 Article 9, Convention of Belém do Pará. 15