21. Article 46(1) of the American Convention establishes prior exhaustion of domestic remedies in the internal jurisdiction of a state as a requirement for a claim to be admissible. In the instant matter, the petitioners allege that the trial of the state agents allegedly involved before the military courts has deprived the victims and their next-of-kin of access to an adequate and effective remedy. In addition, they allege that there has been an unwarranted delay in clarifying the facts, locating the remains of 37 of the victims, and determining the liability of all the civilians involved. Accordingly, they argue that on this occasion the admissibility requirement at Article 46(1) of the Convention does not apply, by application of the exceptions to the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies set forth in Article 46(2)(a) and (c). The State, for its part, submitted information on the results obtained by the military and ordinary jurisdictions and on the investigations still pending. 22. Article 46(2) of the Convention provides that the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies does not apply when: a. the domestic legislation of the state concerned does not afford due process of law for the protection of the right or rights that have allegedly been violated; b. the party alleging violation of his rights has been denied access to the remedies under domestic law or has been prevented from exhausting them; or c. there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. As the Inter-American Court has established, whenever a state alleges that the petitioner has failed to exhaust domestic remedies, it has the burden of showing that the remedies that have not been exhausted are “adequate” to address the infringement alleged, i.e. that these remedies operate suitably within the domestic legal system to protect the legal interests that were violated.8 23. The Commission will address the situation of prior exhaustion in the instant matter first with respect to the cases in the military criminal courts, and second with respect to the prospects for the cases before the ordinary courts and the investigations pending. 24. The Commission has repeatedly indicated that the military courts are not an appropriate forum and therefore do not provide an adequate remedy for investigating, trying, or punishing human rights violations enshrined in the American Convention, and allegedly committed by members of the official forces, or with their collaboration or acquiescence.9 In addition, the Inter-American Court has confirmed that the military criminal justice system is adequate solely for trying members of the military for crimes or offenses which by their very nature are detrimental to legal interests particular to military order.10 Trial before the military courts of members of the Army allegedly involved in the massacre, by act or omission, is not an adequate remedy for determining their responsibility in the serious violations alleged, in the terms of Article 46(1) of the American Convention. 25. As regards the activity of the ordinary courts, the information provided by both parties indicates that on May 26, 1997, the Regional Court of Medellín, in a first instance proceeding, convicted paramilitary leader Castaño Gil and nine other persons, imposing prison sentences ranging from 12 to 30 years, and ordering that they pay fines for the crimes of multiple homicide, conspiracy, kidnapping, illegal possession of arms that are for exclusive use of the official forces, and violation of decree 1194 of 1997. It should be clarified that more than five years after that verdict, only three of the ten convicted (José Aníbal Rodríguez Urquijo, Héctor de Jesús Narváez, and Pedro Hernán Ozaga Pantoja) are imprisoned. The other arrest warrants have yet to be executed. 8 I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Judgment of July 29, 1988, para. 64. 9 IACHR, Third Report on the Human Rights Situation in Colombia (1999), p. 175; Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Colombia (1993), p. 246; Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Brazil (1997), pp. 40-42. 10 I/A Court H.R., Durand and Ugarte Case, Judgment of August 16, 2000, para. 117. 5