must demonstrate that the remedies in question were exhausted or that one or other of the exceptions provided for in Article 46(2) of the American Convention is applicable. 39. Since the petition refers to the failure to investigate and punish those responsible for the alleged illegal detention and psychological torture of the petitioner, the Inter-American Commission is of the view that the appropriate remedy is to institute and pursue a criminal proceeding to determine responsibility. The Inter-American Commission has indicated on other occasions that once a crime subject to automatic prosecution is committed, the State has an obligation to institute and pursue the criminal proceeding up to its ultimate consequences and that, in such cases, this is the ideal way to clarify the facts, bring to justice those responsible and mete out the appropriate criminal punishment, in addition to providing for other means of financial compensation.12 Consequently, the victim or his relatives may not be required to exhaust remedies under domestic law by bringing such actions.13 40. The obligation to investigate, prosecute and punish those responsible for violations of human rights is an inescapable duty of the State14 and is therefore not subject to prior personal actions being brought by the victims against the agents implicated, independently of what the domestic law may provide in the matter.15 One consequence of this is that a public official, unlike a private individual, has a legal obligation to denounce any crime by a public authority of which he becomes aware in the exercise of his functions. This requirement is confirmed in some procedural systems that deny the victim or his family the right to institute proceedings, with the State exercising a monopoly over criminal proceedings. And in those other cases in which this right is provided, its exercise is not compulsory but optional for the victim of the violation and is not a substitute for action by the State.16 41. In situations such as that described in the petition under review, in which the illegal detention and psychological torture of a person is denounced and which are treated under the domestic law as crimes that are automatically subject to prosecution, the domestic remedies that must be taken into account for the purposes of the admissibility of the petition are those related to the investigation and punishment of those responsible for such acts. In the instant case, the petitioner brought to the attention of the Attorney General of the Nation, in person, the illegal circumstances of his detention, as described in the document included with the file. In addition, once he regained his freedom, the petitioner filed a complaint with the Office of the Attorney General against the officials whom he considered responsible.17 That Office, as the organ of the State responsible for instituting at its own initiative or at the request of the party the legal proceeding in defense of the legality of the rights of citizens and of the public interests protected by the law, did not bring the appropriate criminal action before the courts of justice. On the contrary, a decision of the Internal Oversight Office of the Attorney General, dated May 8, 1998, which was notified to the petitioner in 2001, provided for the complaint to be filed away in application of Article 4 of Amnesty Law No. 26479. That law granted amnesty to military, police and civilian personnel for crimes committed during or as a consequence of the fight against terrorism. Subsequently, Article 2 of Act. No. 26492 prohibited the review in a judicial forum of Act No. 26479. Article 3 of the law interpreting those provisions further provided that application of the amnesty law by Peruvian jurisdictional organs was mandatory. 42. The Commission has already stated on other occasions that by virtue of those provisions the alleged victims were deprived of access to the domestic remedies and that these remedies proved in any case to be ineffective, thereby constituting the exceptions listed in Article 12 IACHR, Report Nº 83/01 Case 11.581, Zulema Tarazona Arriate, Norma Teresa Pérez Chávez and Luis Alberto Bejarano Laura v. Peru, October 10, 2001 para. 25. 13 IACHR, Report Nº 52/97, Case 11.218, Arges Sequeira Mangas v. Nicaragua, February 18, 1998, para. 96. 14 IACHR, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C, Nº 4, para. 177. 15 IACHR, Zulema Tarazona Arriate, Norma Teresa Pérez Chávez and Luis Alberto Bejarano Laura v. Peru, cit. para. 27. 16 IACHR, Arges Sequeira Mangas v. Nicaragua, cit, paras. 96-97; Report Nº 86/99, Case 11.589, Armando Alejandre Jr. Carlos Costa, Mario de La Peña and Pablo Morales v. Cuba, September 29, 1999, paras. 47-49. 17 The file also contains a request dated January 16, 1995 in which the petitioner denounces the acts to the President of the Council of Prosecutors in the Office of the Attorney General and requests that the appropriate investigation be carried out. 7