25.They state that on February 8, 1999, the same branch of the Public Prosecutor’s Office lodged an official accusation against officers Carlos Andrés Requena Mendoza, Carlos Alexander Rojas Alvarado, and Freddy Antonio Blanco Pérez, for the crimes of aggravated homicide and unlawful use of firearms. They also say that the writ was sent that same month to the Municipal Judge of Santiago Mariño in the State of Aragua, where it remained until September 1999 when it was sent to the Second Transition Judge of the Aragua State Criminal Judicial Circuit. 26.They go on to say that in January 2000, following numerous requests, Mr. Ignacio Landaeta was informed that the file was at the Ninth Office of the Public Prosecutor, where it remained in a secretary’s desk for eight months with no action taken. They state that in April 2002, Mr. Ignacio Landaeta approached the Transition Prosecutor of the Higher Prosecutor’s Office of the State of Aragua, who assured him that he would ask for the file and would look into the case, which did not happen because apparently he could not find it. 27.The petitioners state that in November, 2002, the Ninth Office of the Public Prosecutor sent the case to the Higher Prosecutor’s Office who assigned it to a Transition Prosecutor who did nothing for three months. They say that in February 2003, the case was again sent to another prosecutor’s office, which retained the file until January 2004 without completing its investigations because the official in charge indicated that she knew one of the suspects and it seemed to her “impossible that he should have committed that crime.” They state that at that date the case was assigned to another transition prosecutor. 28.On July 16, 2004, they say, the transition prosecutor delivered the final writ requesting the Fourth Control Court of the Aragua State Criminal Judicial Circuit to issue a stay of proceedings in favor of the suspects because there was not enough evidence to link them with the facts of the case, even though the crime had not been prescribed. They say that on November 9, 2004, a hearing was held during which the acting judge of the said Fourth Court found that the request for a stay of proceedings was not admissible because there were still areas to be investigated. 29.They state that on April 26, 2005 and June 20, 2005, Mr. Ignacio Landaeta lodged writs with both the Human Rights and Special Projects Offices of the Venezuelan Attorney General’s Office, requesting the allocation of a prosecutor with national competence to take charge of the case. They state that no response had been received to this request up to the time when the present petition was lodged. 30.They state that on July 13, 2005 the case was allocated to a new Transition Prosecutor before whom, on August 30, 2005 and September 22, 2005, Mr. Ignacio Landaeta lodged writs requesting that certain proceedings be carried out that he considered necessary for the investigations. They state that on September 27, 2005, a complaint was lodged with the Superior Prosecutor of the Attorney General’s Office alleging procedural delays by the Transition Prosecutor’s Office. 31.They add that on October 11, 2005, Mr. Ignacio Landaeta requested the National Office for Judicial Action (Dirección Nacional de Actuación Procesal) and the Special Projects Office of the Attorney General’s Office (Dirección de Proyectos Especiales de la Fiscalía General) to forward the case to the 20th Human Rights Prosecutor’s Office (Fiscalía 20 de Derechos Fundamentales) of the State of Aragua, but received no response. They state that on November 15, 2005, the Office in question requested the officers’ criminal records and received two affidavits. 32.With regard to the exhaustion of remedies available under domestic law, the petitioners allege the even though nine years have elapsed since the investigation was opened, it is still at a preparatory stage, there have been numerous irregularities such as the repeated disappearance of the file, proceedings at a standstill, and widespread inertia on the part of prosecutors in calling for and collecting evidence in the case. They argue that the current stage of the proceedings and the lack of any arrests, charges, or punishment of those responsible, even though this is not a complex case, all constitute an unwarranted delay and suggest the 4