time, he requested his retirement, after his career had culminated with the position of instructor at the Ramón L. Falcón Police School, according to press reports which the State has not denied. IV. PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION 27. On May 16, 1997, the Commission requested information from the State on the facts alleged by the petitioners. The State requested three consecutive extensions: the first on August 15, 1997, which was granted for 30 days on August 19; the second, on September 16, which was granted for 30 days as of September 22; the third, requested on October 22, which was granted until November 15, 1997. 28. On November 18, 1997, the Commission received the State’s reply and forwarded it to the petitioners on November 21. They requested an extension on December 23 and this was granted for 30 days on January 14, 1998. 29. On February 26, 1998, the Commission held a hearing to discuss the admissibility of the case during its 98th Session. V. POSITION OF THE PARTIES ON ADMISSIBILITY A. Position of the petitioners 30. With regard to the admissibility of the complaint, they affirm that since 1991, when the events occurred, there has not been a firm judgement on the facts under investigation. Consequently, there are two grounds for exception to the rule contained in Article 4(1)(a) of the American Convention; that the domestic legislation of the State concerned does not afford due process of law for the protection of the rights that have allegedly been violated Article 46(2)(a) and that there has been an unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgement under the aforementioned remedies Article 46(2)(c). 31. They allege that the State’s unwarranted delay in determining responsibilities for the facts reported constitutes a violation of Article 8 of the American Convention. During the proceedings, the judicial authorities have been responsible for delays on simple matters and also the defense counsel has used delaying tactics. Currently, the case is paralyzed and the "incidental plea of lack of jurisdiction" has not been resolved; this is neither complex nor difficult. Furthermore, since March 1996, there has been no progress in clarifying the circumstances surrounding the facts denounced. B. Position of the State 32. The State alleges the non-admissibility of the complaint because domestic remedies have not been exhausted and because the facts alleged by the petitioner do not constitute violations of rights protected in the Convention. 33. It asserts that domestic remedies have not been exhausted in accordance with international law because the case is still pending judgment by the trial judge and, if appropriate, the verdict could be appealed, and even the object of a special appeal proceedings and a complaint appeal if this was not conceded. 34. It alleges that there has not been an unwarranted delay and denies a lack of interest by the judicial authorities or that the investigation has not prospered because the investigators were the same people who were under investigation. The State maintains that the effectiveness of the remedies has been proved in these proceedings up until the judgement of the Argentine Supreme Court of Justice of April 5, 1994. 5