have committed serious violations of the rights of a person must be judged by regular courts. They indicated that the independence of the judge requires that he or she not be subjected, from any point of view, to any other authority, and that police judges are not designated by the judiciary, but by the executive, are members of the police institution, have a rank and therefore are subject to superiors in the police. They alleged that such subordination of the police courts is reflected throughout the criminal proceeding when, in order to carry out several investigative steps, the judge sought permission from his superiors in the police. 20. They added that the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Police then in force provided that the preliminary stage should last a maximum of 60 days, the intermediate stage 21 days, and that the consultation (la consulta) should last a maximum of 15 days. Nonetheless, in the instant case the proceeding was begun December 3, 1992, and it was not until 1994 that the preliminary stage was concluded, and on August 16, 1994, charges were dismissed with prejudice, such that the first two stages of the criminal proceeding, which should have lasted no more than 81 days, lasted one year and eight months. They added that the consultation, which should have lasted 15 days, took four months until the District Court of the Police ruled to vacate the proceedings, since a measure required by law had not been taken. They then indicated that it was not until September 20, 1995, nine months later, that the judge once again took cognizance of the case, and it took another year and a month to cure the nullity. In their opinion, the start date for calculating the total duration of the process is December 3, 1992, when the criminal proceedings were initiated, and the end date is November 11, 1996, when the order was handed down dismissing charges with prejudice. 21. According to the petitioners, these delays resulted in some of the police being called to give testimony in 1996, when they no longer recalled the facts or were no longer members of the police institution, and so did not appear. They added that the expert exhumation did not reach any conclusion for there was no skin on the corpse to determine the distance from which the shots were fired. They argued that in the event that the Commission did not accept their argument regarding failure to abide by the time periods established in the domestic legislation, the analysis should take into account the elements of: (a) the complexity of the matter; (b) the procedural activity of the interested person; and (c) the conduct of the judicial authorities. 22. As for the right to judicial protection, they indicated that based on the foregoing elements, the jurisdiction of the police courts, the deficiencies of the investigation and the delay, the State did not provide the family members an adequate remedy which in a reasonable time could establish the facts. They added that the alleged victim’s widow complied with her obligation to file the complaint and private accusation, without it being required of her to give impetus to the criminal proceeding in the police jurisdiction. B. The State’s position 23. The State indicated that the case should be considered inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. It indicated that the petitioners did not appeal the decision of the regular judge to recuse himself and not take cognizance of the matter, so as to keep it from being processed before the criminal judge in the police jurisdiction. 24. As regards the application of the criminal justice system of the police jurisdiction, the State cited case-law of the Inter-American Court according to which in a democratic state the special jurisdictions for the military and the police are aimed at protecting special legal interests associated with the functions that the law assigns those forces. The State added that according to the same case-law, those jurisdictions should be restrictive and exceptional when it comes to judging the members of the armed forces or police based on the commission of crimes or misdemeanors which, by their nature, attack legal interests particular to the military or police order. In the opinion of the State, there is no clear line between what is encompassed by the special legal interest associated with the functions of members of the armed forces and police, and what constitutes common crimes that must be heard in the regular jurisdiction, accordingly, it is the responsibility of both the national judges and the interested parties to clarify, in the specific case, what were the circumstances of the facts and the legal interests at issue.