30. As the Inter-American Court has found, a State claiming non-exhaustion of domestic remedies on the part of the petitioner has the burden of showing that the remedies that remain to be exhausted are “adequate” for repairing the alleged violation, in other words that they are suitable to address an infringement of a legal right.20 31. The Commission deems it appropriate to refer to the circumstances surrounding exhaustion of domestic remedies in the instant case, first in connection with the cases referred to the military criminal courts by decision of the Council of the Judicature, and second in relation to the prospects for the effectiveness of the cases before the ordinary courts and the outstanding investigations. 32. The Commission notes that in the instant case the Human Rights Unit of the Prosecutor General’s Office found that there were sufficient grounds to bring charges against Brigadier General Uscátegui Ramírez and Lieutenant Colonel Orozco for coparticipation in the crimes of abduction and homicide.21 However, following the conflict of jurisdiction advanced by the Commander of the Army, the case against these two senior officers was transferred to the military courts under the charges of alleged failure to carry out military duties and falsification of a public document. It has come to the attention of the Commission that on February 13, 2001 retired Brigadier General Uscátegui was sentenced to 40 months imprisonment for breach of duty by omission and acquitted of the charge of falsification of a public document, in addition to which all proceedings against him concerning the accusations of murder, torture, membership of paramilitary groups, and abduction for purposes of extortion were dismissed. Further, Lieutenant Colonel Orozco was sentenced to 38 months imprisonment for the crime of failure to carry out military duties. 33. The Commission has held on several occasions to the effect that the military courts are not an appropriate forum and, therefore, do not provide an adequate remedy to investigate, prosecute and punish violations of human rights enshrined in the American Convention allegedly committed by the security forces, or with their cooperation or acquiescence.22 Furthermore, the Inter-American Court has recently determined that the military courts are only an adequate venue to try military personnel accused of crimes or offences, which, by their nature, harm legally protected military interests.23 34. In the instant case, the transfer to the military courts of the case against the senior military officers allegedly involved in the massacre, coupled with the reduction of the charges originally brought in the ordinary jurisdiction, suggest that the families of the victims have been denied access to an adequate remedy to investigate, prosecute and punish those responsible for the serious acts alleged by the petitioners, in accordance with Article 46(2) of the American Convention and the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court. 35. As to the measures adopted by the ordinary courts, the information furnished by both parties indicates that arrest warrants have been issued for a number of persons under investigation, including known leaders of the AUC and members of the Army, some of whom are allegedly being prosecuted. However, as the petitioners have mentioned and the State has acknowledged, there are arrest warrants that have not been served more than three years after the serious crimes alleged in the petition occurred, in spite of concerning persons who are in daily contact with the press and in some cases, as is public knowledge, with government officials. Furthermore, the investigation aimed at detaining the rest of the approximately one hundred members of the AUC that took part in carrying out the massacre remains open. 20 Inter-Am. Ct.H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Judgment of July 29, 1988, paragraph 64. 21 The Human Rights Unit has said, “the charge is supported by the fact that the aim of the omissions and the positive manifestations of consent that occurred was not simply to fail to carry out a duty, but to cause illegal effects to do with the deprivation of freedom and subsequent murder of the victims.” Human Rights Unit of the Prosecutor General’s Office, Decision of June 21, 1999 on the conflict of jurisdiction advanced by the Commander of the National Army in cases UDH 244 and 443 concerning Brigadier General Jaime Humberto Uscátegui and four other officers of the Colombian National Army, p. 14. 22 IACHR, Third Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Colombia (1999), p.175; Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Colombia (1993), p.246; Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Brazil (1997), pp.40-42. 23 Inter-Am. Ct.H.R., Durand y Ugarte Case, Judgment of August 16, 2000, paragraph 117. 7