CRPD/C/22/D/24/2014 regional human rights mechanisms. 8 Where domestic remedies are non-existent, or unduly and unreasonably prolonged, or unlikely to bring effective relief, resort to international measures is allowed. The author considers that this is the case for the acts of murder and attacks against persons with albinism, which are systemic and continuous in the State party, amounting to a grave violation of their rights, and which remain unpunished. 5.2 As to the State party’s submission that the investigation into the author’s case began on the same day that she was attacked, namely on 17 October 2008, and that three culprits were arrested, the author acknowledges that the prosecutor withdrew the matter against two of the accused persons for insufficient evidence. 5.3 The author recalls the decision of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights in Arges Sequeira Mangas v. Nicaragua, referred to above. According to the Commission, in the case of crimes of public action, and even in those that may be prosecuted by a private actor, it is not valid to demand the exhaustion of domestic remedies by the victim or the victim’s relatives, since the State party has a duty to maintain public order and therefore to set the criminal law system into motion and process the matter until the end. Furthermore, the Commission quotes the Inter-American Court of Human Rights as stating that the obligation to investigate, prosecute and punish the persons liable for human rights violations is a non-delegable duty of the State.9 5.4 The author submits that the State party has neglected to conduct effective investigation and prosecution in her case, as in many nolle prosequi cases, in which prosecution is discontinued. She was not provided with any information as to the progress made to bring the culprits to justice. Therefore, even though the State party alleges that the investigations are ongoing to bring justice, there is no sign of an end and result of such investigations and, ultimately, justice has been denied to the author. 5.5 The author further argues that there is no need to exhaust unduly prolonged remedies that by their very nature are ineffective. Ordinarily, treaty bodies consider the conduct of the State concerned and the complexity of the case to assess the reasonableness of the delay. 10 The State party states that the author has yet to file a constitutional petition claiming a violation of her rights as provided for in the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act, and that this amounts to the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. The author admits that she has not filed a constitutional petition regarding the violation of her rights. 5.6 In that connection, the author refers to a petition submitted in 2009 to the High Court in accordance with the Basic Rights and Duties Enforcement Act by persons with 8 9 10 The author refers to the decision of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights in Sir Dawda K. Jawara v. The Gambia (communications Nos. 147/95 and 149/96, Decision, 11 May 2000), according to which “[t]hree major criteria could be deduced … in determining this rule, namely: the remedy must be available, effective and sufficient”. The Commission also stated the following: “A remedy is considered available if the petitioner can pursue it without impediment, it is deemed effective if it offers a prospect of success, and it is found sufficient if it is capable of redressing the complaint.” The author also refers to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in Sejdovic v. Italy (Application No. 56581/00, Judgment, 1 March 2006), according to which applicants are required to exhaust only those domestic remedies that are available in theory and in practice at the relevant time and that they can directly institute themselves, meaning that the remedies must be accessible, be capable of providing redress in respect of their complaints and offer reasonable prospects of success. The author also refers to the decision of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in Greco v. Argentina (Report No. 72/01, Case No. 11.804, 10 October 2001), in which the Commission stated the following: “While it is the responsibility of the petitioner … to ensure that the State is placed on proper notice of an alleged violation of the Convention, so as to have an adequate opportunity to resolve the complaint within its own legal system, it is the State that is obliged to advance the investigation of any crime which may be prosecuted de oficio. In such cases, it can only be demanded that the petitioner exhaust domestic remedies where the State concerned investigates the facts alleged with due diligence and proceeds to punish any persons found responsible in accordance with its duties under both domestic law and the [American] Convention [on Human Rights].” See also European Court of Human Rights, Spas Todorov v. Bulgaria, Application No. 38299/05, Judgment, 5 November 2009, para. 45. 7