an effect and should not be interpreted in such a way as to negate its effect or lead to a result that is manifestly absurd or unreasonable. 1 36. In the instant case the State indicated that the domestic remedies were not exhausted because the decision of the regular judge to recuse himself from taking cognizance of the proceeding was not appealed and that such an appeal was the adequate remedy available to the petitioners domestically to exercise their rights. The petitioners, for their part, alleged that the suitable remedy was the criminal proceeding, and that as of the date the petition was filed almost two years had elapsed without a final decision in the matter, accordingly the exception of unwarranted delay would apply. The State subsequently affirmed that said exception would not be applicable insofar as the proceeding began December 3, 1992, and on November 11, 1996, the judge of the police jurisdiction issued an order of dismissal with prejudice, which was upheld “in consultation” by the District Court of the National Police, which on March 5, 1997, issued its final judgment affirming the dismissal. 37. As the Commission has indicated, in order to analyze whether the exhaustion requirement has been met, it must determine what the adequate remedy to be exhausted is as per the circumstances of the case, understanding this to mean the one that can solve the legal situation infringed. 2 In this regard, in cases of alleged arbitrary deprivations of the right to life, the Commission has noted repeatedly that the adequate remedy is a criminal investigation and a criminal trial initiated and given impetus sua sponte by the State to identify the persons responsible and impose the corresponding sanctions. 3 38. In the instant matter, the Commission observes that the investigation into the death of Mr. Luis Jorge Valencia Hinojosa culminated after the resolution of the First District Court of the National Police, a special jurisdiction, which affirmed the dismissal of charges against the police officers implicated, thus ruling out the hypothesis of homicide. 39. In this respect, the Commission notes that it has ruled repeatedly that special jurisdictions, such as the military or police jurisdictions, do not constitute an appropriate forum for investigating alleged violations of human rights, and therefore do not constitute an adequate remedy for investigating, prosecuting, and punishing violations of the right to life allegedly committed by members of the official forces. 4 The IACHR has repeatedly held in cases such as the instant case that a criminal investigation aimed at clarifying the facts and, as the case may be, imposing the corresponding responsibilities, means a criminal investigation in the regular jurisdiction.5 1 I/A Court H.R. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 63, I/A Court H.R. Case of Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of March 15, 1989. Series C No. 6, para. 88; IACHR. Report No. 3/10, Petition 12,088, Admissibility, Segundo Norberto Contreras Contreras, Ecuador, March 15, 2010, para. 38. 2 IACHR. Report No. 51/08. Petition 299-07. Admissibility. Robert Ignacio Díaz Loreto et al. Venezuela. July 24,2008; and IACHR. Report No. 23/07. Eduardo José Landaeta Mejías et al. Petition 435-2006, Admissibility, para. 43, March 9, 2007. 3 IACHR. Report No. 23/07, Eduardo José Landaeta Mejías et al., Petition 435-2006, Admissibility, para. 43, March 9, 2007; IACHR, Report No. 15/06, Maria Emilia González, Paula Micaela González and María Verónica Villar. Petition 618-01, Admissibility, para. 34, March 2, 2006; IACHR, Report No. 52/97, Case 11,218, Arges Sequeira Mangas, 1997 Annual Report, paras. 96 and 97. See also Report No. 55/97, para. 392 and Report No. 55/04 para. 25. 4 IACHR, Admissibility Report No. 11/02, Joaquín Hernández Alvarado et al. (Ecuador), February 27, 2002, para. 18. See also, IACHR, Report No. 64/01 Case 11,712, Leonel de Jesús Isaza Echeverry and one other (Colombia) April 6, 2001, para. 22. See also, I/A Court H.R., Case of Durand and Ugarte. Judgment of August 16, 2000, para. 117; I/A Court H.R., Case of Cesti Hurtado. Judgment of September 29, 1999, para. 151. See also IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Chile, September 27, 1985, pp. 199. 200. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.66 doc. 17; IACHR, 1996 Annual Report, March 14, 1997, p. 688. IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Ecuador, April 24, 1997, p. 36. IACHR, Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Brazil, September 29, 1997, p. 50. 5 See, for example, IACHR, Report No. 64/01 Case 11,712, Leonel de Jesús Isaza Echeverry and one other (Colombia), April 6, 2001, para. 22. See also, I/A Court H.R., Case of Durand and Ugarte, Judgment of August 16, 2000, para. 117; I/A Court H.R., Case of Cesti Hurtado, Judgment of September 29, 1999, para. 151; Report No. 52/97, Case 11,218, Arges Sequeira Mangas, 1997 Annual Report of the IACHR, paras. 96 and 97. See also Report No. 55/97, para. 392.