B. Other requirements for admissibility of the petition a. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 14. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention provides that the admissibility of a petition presented to the Commission shall be subject to the requirement "that the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law;”.Article 46(2) of the Convention establishes three potential situations in which the rule on exhaustion of domestic remedies does not apply: 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. 15. In respect of the criminal proceedings against Mr. García Cruz and Mr. Sánchez Silvestre, the petitioners allege that the domestic remedies in Mexico have been ineffective; regarding investigation into the allegations of torture, they maintain that there has been an unwarranted delay. For its part, the State did not initially argue noncompliance with the exhaustion requirement, but it later referred to a second judicial proceeding started in 1997 against Mr. García Cruz and Mr. Sánchez Silvestre. The State explains that the latter proceeding was based on the fact that “in the same statements made when they surrendered under questioning, which gave rise to the suit in question, Mr. Juan García Cruz and Mr. Santiago Sánchez Silvestre spoke about their participation in a shoot out in December 1996, which resulted in the death of a police officer of the State of Mexico”. 9 Consequently, the State requests that the Inter-American Commission declare the case inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies in the part of the petition that refers to the second trial for homicide, which was pending at the time of the second communication to the IACHR. 16. When a State alleges that there has been no exhaustion of domestic remedies, it bears the burden of proof to show which ones must be exhausted and to demonstrate their effectiveness. 10 In that case, the petitioners then bear the burden of proving that the remedies were exhausted or that one of the exceptions in Article 46(2) of the American Convention applies. 17. In this case, the IACHR considers that it is not possible to separate the arguments in fact and in law referring to the case on bearing firearms from the second proceeding referring to the homicide of which Mr. García Cruz and Mr. Sánchez Silvestre were accused. The legal position of both persons in the two proceedings is based on the statement that was madeaccording to the petitioners, which was not contested by the State-while they were held incommunicado at the PGJDF facilities without access to an attorney. Therefore, the determination of the Inter-American Commission with respect to the first of the aforementioned proceedings will necessarily affect the second one. 18. Without entering into an analysis of the arguments put forward by the parties on the alleged violation of judicial guarantees and judicial protection, the Inter-American Commission observes, in a preliminary manner, that at the time this report was approved, six years had gone by since June 1997 when Mr. García Cruz and Mr. Sanchez’s injuries were detected and this was reported to the judicial authorities. The investigation of the allegations of torture, according to the findings in the case, did not begin until March 2002 and there is no indication that it would have been completed by the time this report was adopted. 9Communication from the State dated July 3, 2001, pg. 2. 10Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Velásquez Rodríguez Case, judgment on preliminary exceptions cited, para. 88.See also, Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales Case, Preliminary Exceptions, Judgment of June 26, 1987, Series C No. 2, para. 8; Godínez Cruz Case, Preliminary Exceptions, Judgment of June 26, 1987, Series C No. 3, para.90; Gangaram Panday Case, Preliminary Exceptions, Judgment of December 4, 1991, Series C No.12, para. 38; Neira Alegría et. al Case, Preliminary Exceptions, Judgment of December 11, 1991, Series C No.13, para. 30; Castillo Páez Case, Preliminary Exceptions, Judgment of January 30, 1996, Series C No. 24, para.40; Loayza Tamayo Case, Preliminary Exceptions, Judgment of January 31, 1996, Series C No. 25, para. 40; Exceptions to Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies (Art. 46.1, 46.2.a and 46.2.b American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-11/90 of August 10, 1990, Series A No.11, para. 41. 4