and therefore it was the State who had the duty and the means to investigate the facts of the complaint. 53. The Commission cannot require the petitioners to continue to promote the carrying out of procedures that they have already requested, since appeals for remedy that are not decided in a reasonable time period cannot be considered to be available or effective. The Commission has held that, as a general rule, a criminal investigation must be carried out promptly to protect the interests of the victims, to preserve the evidence, and also to safeguard the rights of all persons deemed suspects in the investigation.10 The Inter-American Court has also held that although all criminal investigations must meet a series of legal requirements, the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies must not mean that international action in support of the defenseless victim is halted or delayed to the point of uselessness.11 54. In the instant case, the petitioners do not only allege that there has been a delay in the judicial proceedings, they state the such delay has been unreasonable. After analyzing the facts, the Commission concludes that there has been an unwarranted delay in the legal proceedings, and that the exception provided for by article 46(2) (c) of the American Convention is hence applicable. It should be noted that article 46(2) by its nature and purpose, is a norm that stands alone visà-vis the substantive norms of the Convention. Consequently, the determination of whether the exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies is applicable to the case at hand must be decided as a prior and separate matter from the merits of the case, since it depends upon a different standard of evaluation from that used to determine a possible violation of the Convention.12 2. Time period for lodging the petition 55. Pursuant to the provisions of article 46(1)(b) of the Convention, to be admissible, a petition that the petition or communication is lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the party alleging violation of his rights was notified of the final judgment in his or her domestic venue. 10 IACHR, Report on Admissibility No. 86/06, Petition 499-04 Marino López et al. (Operation Genesis), Colombia, October 21, 2006, para. 48. 11 I/A Court H.R., Case of Godínez Cruz. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987, Series C, No. 3. 12 IACHR, Report on Admissibility No. 86/06, Petition 499-04 Marino López et al. (Operation Genesis), Colombia, October 21, 2006, para. 52. 14