15 wherein the determination of the whereabouts, the localization of the bodily remains, the clarification of the circumstances of the deaths, and the delivery of the official archive of information regarding the military operations against the Guerrilha do Araguaia was requested; c) the Public Civil Suit No. 2001.39.01.000810-5, filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office in order to obtain from the State all the existent documents on the military actions of the Armed Forces against the Guerrilla; d) the secondary private action for the criminal prosecution of crimes of public action, and e) initiatives in regard to the request for compensation, such as the ordinary civil action for compensation and the request for pecuniary reparation in the context of Law No. 9.140/95, of the Special Commission on Political Deaths and Disappearances of Persons and the Amnesty Commission pursuant to Law 10.559/02, among other measures of reparation. 34. In particular, regarding the Ordinary Action No. 82.00.024682-5, Brazil noted that on February 8, 2008, a definitive decision on the matter was issued, and its compliance is underway. On July 10, 2009, the date in which the time period established for the State to comply with the decision, the Attorney General’s Office sent “all the available documentation in the hands of the Federal Union regarding the military operations, particularly in what deals with armed conflicts, the capture and detention of civilians, recognition of bodies, identification of victims, expert witnesses investigations, location of the bodily remains found, and information regarding transfers of civilians, dead or alive, to any area, which took place in said period of time.” Likewise, said court has summoned experts to render declarations and documents in their possession regarding the Guerrilha do Araguaia. On the other hand, the State expressed that the Public Civil Suit filed by the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office on August 25, 2001,36 was ruled admissible on December 19, 2005. Nevertheless, due to the remedies filed by the Federal Union against said ruling, it is not yet of a final nature. 35. The Commission argued that the issue of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies was duly analyzed in the Admissibility Report No. 33/01 on March 6, 2001. It affirmed that three of the four argumentative points of the State, those related with the Non-compliance Action of the Fundamental Principle No. 153, the Public Civil Suit, and the specific considerations on the adopted measures of reparation, are subsequent to the date in which the Report was issued. Moreover, regarding the Ordinary Action, the Commission explicitly expressed in its admissibility report that, despite the complexity of the case and the interposition of many remedies in the context of said process, years have passed without a final decision and said delay cannot be considered reasonable. For this reason, the Commission applied the objection enshrined in Article 46(2)(c) of the Convention and declared the petition admissible. Furthermore, it noted that the State did not argue in its response to the petition, that the decision of admissibility which was adopted was based on erroneous information or that it stemmed from a process wherein the parties’ equality of arms or right to defense was restricted. It also argued that, in principle, the content of the decisions on admissibility adopted in accordance with the Convention and the Commission Rules of Procedure should not be subject to a new substantive analysis. As such, the Commission requested the Court not to admit this preliminary objection. 36. The representatives noted that the Commission has already carried out an analysis of admissibility in the case, and the Court must make reference to it. Based on the principles of legal and procedural certainty, once the admissibility of 36 Article 129.III of the Federal Constitution establishes that the “Acão Civil Pública” [“Public Civil Suit”] is a form of institutional function for the defense of diffuse and collective interests