20. In light of the circumstances surrounding the death of Johan Alexis Ortiz, the lack of judicial clarification of the facts, and unwarranted delays in the criminal proceedings, the petitioners request that the case be declared admissible for alleged violations of the rights to life, personal integrity, a fair trial, and judicial protection enshrined in Articles 4, 5, 8, and 25, in relation to the obligations set forth in Article 1.1 of the American Convention. B. Position of the State 21. The State presented its observations in two reports requesting that the petition be declared inadmissible. To this end, the State argued that the petitioners had admitted in their written documents that legal domestic remedies to resolve legal situations allegedly infringed by the Venezuelan State had not been exhausted. It further argued that concurrency of international legal action was operating in the case. Consequently, the State requested that the petition be declared inadmissible in accordance with the provisions of Articles 46(1) (a) and 47(d) of the American Convention. 22. Concerning the failure to exhaust domestic remedies, the State asserted that by claiming an unwarranted delay in the criminal proceedings, the petitioners had admitted that domestic remedies had not been exhausted. The State affirmed that a criminal proceeding exists, and that the petitioners have had the opportunity to present evidence and to object to decisions with which they are not in agreement. Hence, the State argued that the criminal process has not yet been exhausted, which demonstrates the failure to exhaust domestic remedies. It further demonstrates that the State, at all times, has proceeded with the investigation in a timely and diligent manner. 23. Regarding the claim of concurrency of international legal action, the State argues that the government has received correspondence concerning the existence of an international process relating to the same events before the United Nations. This situation makes the petition inadmissible, since a judgment in the matter is pending before another international organization on the same legal situation, and from the same petitioners, which could produce conflicting judgments emanating from international bodies. 24. The State refers to a note received on October 9, 1999, from the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions. In this note, the Rapporteur states that “according to information received, Edgar Humberto Ortiz and Zaida Hernández de Arellano have received telephone calls threatening them with death,” and that these threats “would be related to the death of their son Johan Alexis Hernández”. The Rapporteur requested detailed information regarding the aforementioned complaints in the following words: “In particular, I would be grateful for information on the legal investigations carried out by the competent authorities, as well as the measures taken, in accordance with the cited international standards, to ensure the effective protection of the right to life and physical integrity of the afore-mentioned individual(s).”5 5 Ministry of Foreign Relations, State Agent for Human Rights before the Inter-American and International System, Report-Response of December 12, 2002, pp. 12 and 13.