B. Exhaustion of domestic remedies and timeliness of the petition 26. As regards the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Commission has established that in cases such as the instant case, involving allegations of serious human rights violations, the domestic remedies that should be taken into account for purposes of admissibility are those related to the criminal investigation and possible punishment of the persons responsible, which should be promoted by the State at its own initiative. The Commission observes that according to the information produced, in the instant case three oral trials have been held. In two of them state agents have been convicted and given prison sentences for their participation in the illegal deprivation of liberty, kidnapping, and torment of Victoria Grisonas. Those judgments in turn absolved the agents in relation to the allegations regarding the homicide of Mario Julien. With respect to the facts relating to the Larrabeiti Yáñez siblings, according to the information available, the case continues. In addition, on July 6, 2012 Jorge Rafael Videla, was convicted as perpetrator of the crimes of kidnapping, holding, and concealing the cases of the Larrabeiti Yáñez siblings, among other children. 27. Therefore, while there are firm criminal convictions with respect to some of the facts alleged in the instant case, 42 years after these facts the truth has not been clarified and no one responsible has been convicted of the disappearance of Mario Julien, and the case in relation to the Larrabeiti Yáñez siblings continues. With respect to Victoria Grisonas, based on the information available it does not appear that her alleged forced disappearance has been fully clarified, including a judicial determination as to her fate and whereabouts. Based on that information the Commission concludes that the exception to the prior exhaustion rule provided for at Article 46(2)(c) applies in the instant case, noting that the causes and the effects that have impeded the exhaustion of domestic remedies in the instant case will be analyzed, as relevant, in the analysis on the merits that the Commission will set forth in this report. 28. As regards the requirement of timely filing, the petition before the IACHR was received on November 11, 2005, the events that are the subject matter of the claim date to 1976, some of the alleged facts have not ceased, and the alleged effects of the others, including the purported impunity in relation to most of them, extend to the present day. Therefore, in view of the context and characteristics of the instant case, and taking into account the continuity of the alleged forced disappearance, as well as the fact that one of the criminal cases continues, the Commission considers that the petition was filed within a reasonable time, and that the admissibility requirement related to the timeliness of the petition should be deemed satisfied. 29. With respect to the civil action for damages, the Commission has considered that in cases that involve allegations such as those in the instant case, it is not necessary to bring or exhaust a civil action before turning to the inter-American system. Nonetheless, as autonomous violations are alleged in the context of the civil action one should analyze whether domestic remedies have been exhausted in relation to those specific arguments. In this respect, the Commission observes that on October 30, 2007 the Supreme Court found the civil action brought by the Larrabeiti Yáñez siblings to be time-barred, such that as of this pronouncement on admissibility the requirements established at Article 46(1)(a) and (b) of the Convention have been met. C. Colorable claim 30. The Commission considers that if proven the facts alleged by the petitioner would tend to establish violations of the rights established at Articles I, V, VI, VII, VIII, XVII, XIX, and XXV of the American Declaration; Articles 3, 4(1), 5(1), 5(2), 7(1), 8(1), and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to its Articles 1(1) and 2; Articles I(a) and (b) and III of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons; and Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, to the detriment of Mario Julien, Victoria Lucía Grisonas, and Anatole and Victoria Larrabeiti Yáñez. 31. With respect to the alleged violation of Article 24 of the American Convention, from the arguments of the petitioner and the documentation available there is not sufficient information to conclude that the facts in the instant case tend to establish a violation of the right to equality before the law. As regards the alleged violation of Article 21 of the American Convention, the IACHR does not have sufficient information to enable it to make detailed determinations on the possible violation of that article, without prejudice to the need to take this issue into account in the recommendations made in this report, particularly as regards fair compensation.