In the case of crimes of public action, and even in those which may be prosecuted by a private actor, it is not valid to demand exhaustion of domestic remedies of the victim or the victim’s relatives, for the state has a duty to maintain public order, and therefore it has an obligation to set the criminal law system into motion and to process the matter until the end. As the Inter-American Court has stated, the obligation to investigate “must have an objective and be assumed by the State as its own legal duty, not as a step taken by private interests that depends upon the initiative of the victim or his family or upon their offer of proof, without an effective search for the truth by the government.” 4 .... The preceding statement is confirmed in those procedural regimes that deny the victim or victim’s relatives any standing, as the state monopolizes the ability to press criminal charges. And where such standing is provided for, its exercise is not compulsory, but optional for the person who has suffered harm, and does not take the place of state action. 5 33. Accordingly, the Commission considers that the petitioners exhausted domestic remedies with the decision of the Court of Appeals denying the writ of habeas corpus. 34. With respect to the State’s cite to the case-law of the Court according to which the duty to investigate is one “of means, but not of results, accordingly there is no violation when it does not produce the desired result,” it should be noted that the Inter-American Court has also stated that “In certain circumstances, it may be difficult to investigate acts that violate an individual’s rights.... Nevertheless, [the investigation] must be undertaken in a serious manner and not as a mere formality preordained to be ineffective.” 6 b. Time period for presentation 35. The petition was submitted on February 3, 2000, within the six-month period established by Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention, thus that requirement has also been met. c. Duplication of procedures and res judicata 36. The record in this case contains no information whatsoever that might lead to a determination that this matter is pending before another international organization or that it has been previously decided by the Inter-American Commission. Therefore, the IACHR concludes that the objections provided for at Article 46(1)(d) and Article 47(d) of the American Convention do not apply. d. Characterization of the facts alleged 37. The IACHR considers that the facts alleged, if true, tend to establish violations of the rights guaranteed at Articles 1(1), 4, 5, 7, 8(1), and 25 of the American Convention, and Article 1 of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. V. CONCLUSIONS 38. The Inter-American Commission concludes that it is competent to take cognizance of the merits of this case, and that the petition is admissible under Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention. Based on the arguments of fact and of law set forth above, and without prejudging on the merits, 4 5 6 I/A Court HR, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, Judgment of July 29, 1988, para. 177. Annual Report 1997, Case 11.218, Arges Sequeira Mangas v. Republic of Nicaragua, para. 97. I/A Court HR, Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, Judgment of July 29, 1988, para. 177. 7