c. there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. 21. The exceptions defined in Article 46(2) of the Convention have been established precisely in order to guarantee international action when the remedies available under domestic law and under the State’s own domestic judicial system have not been prompt and effective to ensure respect for the human rights of the victims. 7 In the same way, the general rule that requires prior exhaustion of domestic remedies recognizes the right of the State to “resolve the problem according to domestic law before embarking on an international process.” 8 This general rule not only recognizes the above-cited right of the State, but imposes on the State the duty to provide the persons under its jurisdiction with remedies that are suitable to address the infringement of a legal right and capable of producing the result for which they were designed. 9 22. The Commission considers it important to clarify that the exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies are closely linked to the definition of possible violations of certain rights contained in the Convention, such as the right to a fair trial (Article 8), and the right to judicial protection (Article 25). It should be remembered, however, that the content of Article 46(2), in its nature and subject, is independent of the substantive norms of the Convention and the criteria used to arrive at its definitions are distinct from the criteria used to establish violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. The result of this is that the applicability of the exceptions to the rule of exhaustion of the remedies available under domestic law defined in sub-headings (a), (b), and (c) of Article 46.2 should be resolved prior to proceedings in a special pronouncement, as the Commission is doing by publishing the present report. 10 23. As a general rule, a criminal investigation should be carried out promptly in order to protect the interests of the victims and preserve evidence. In the present case, although one of those involved in the crime was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment, the others who were alleged to have been involved have still not been brought to trial. In addition, three of them (for all of whom arrest warrants have been issued) are fugitives from justice and the State has presented no proof of efforts made to locate them. A fourth alleged participant, Mr. Jorge Chávez is in preventive custody for the crime of attempted murder of Sra. Silvia González and not for that of Carlos Antonio Luna López. 11The Commission estimates that the time that has lapsed without an effective investigation taking place or the rest of the alleged participants in the crime having been brought to trial or punished, amounts to an unwarranted delay, and that there is little likelihood that this remedy will be effective in bringing those responsible to trial or punishment. 12In the present case, the Commission considers that domestic remedies have not been exhausted and that the judicial proceedings initiated in connection with the murder of Mr. Carlos Antonio Luna López have exceeded the reasonable time limit for their completion. The State has not provided any justification regarding the reason why the arrest warrants have still not been executed nor has it provided any information regarding reasonable measures adopted with a view to executing them. Nor has the State offered any explanation of the supposed complexity of the affair. 24. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Commission concludes that the casesub judice is admissible on the basis of the exception described in Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention. 2. 7 8 Deadline for presentation of petitions IACHR, Ramón Hernández Berrios and Others, Report No 15/02, February 27, 2002, paragraph. 27. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Velásquez Rodríguez. Judgment of July 29, 1988, Series C. No.4, paragraph 61. 9 IACHR, Ramón Hernández Berrios and Others, see note 7 above, paragraph. 26. 10 11 Ibid., paragraph 30. Judgment of Amparo, No. 784-941-1179-02 of the Constitutional Court of the Supreme Court of Justice of Honduras, April 2, 2003. 12 Ibid., paragraph 35. 4