000392 acls of information as it deems useful for the manifestation of the truth'$, and Article 1 1 2i of the same Code which gives the civil parties the right to participate in the procedure, including to appeal against the decisions of the investigating judge. 36. The Court has held in conclusion, that if the Applicants were not satisfied with the prolongation of the proceedings in respect of their criminal complaint before the Prosecutor General, they had the opportunity to appeal to the investigating judge or to file a civil suit.8 37. ln the instant case, the Court notes that the Applicants filed a criminal complaint with the Respondent State's Office of the Attorney General on 1 February 2012, but until 1 July 2016, the date of the filing of their Application to this Court, their criminal complaint did not give rise to any decision. As far as this Court is concerned, in accordance with its abovementioned jurisprudence on the subject, the Applicants could have seized the investigating judge to avoid the alleged delay in the Attorney General's handling of the complaint. Having failed to pursue this remedy, the Applicants were not justified in submitting that the domestic proceedings were unduly prolonged. 38.|n view of the foregoing, the Court finds the Applicants have not exhausted local remedies. B. Conditions of admissibility not in contention between the Parties 39. Having concluded that the Application is inadmissible due to failure to exhaust local remedies, the Court does not have to pronounce itself on whether other conditions 6 Diakfte Couple v. Mali (Admissibility), $ a7. 7 Counsel for an accused person and the civil party, may both during investigation and after having communicated the proceedings to the registry, submit in writing at the hearing of new witnesses, adversarial pleadings, expert opinions and any such acts of investigation as they deem useful for the defense of the accused and in the interest of the civil party. The judge must justify the order by which he refuses to take additional measures of investigation requested of him 8 Diakitd Couple v. Mall (Admissibility), $$ 51 et 52. 11 0.'- ,W "/- @