responsible. On October 24 of the same year that ruling was reversed in order to continue the procedures to determine those responsible. As of now, the criminal process is in the preliminary investigation stage. 16. The petitioners also point out that the Code of Criminal Procedure in force at the time provided that no civil action would be admitted as long as the case remained in the preliminary stage. Once that provision was amended, the petitioners state they filed a civil action that was declared inadmissible on January 21, 2003. Finally, they state that they filed the action again on February 2011 and that it was admitted on May 2011. 17. In addition, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated in response to the complaint that the alleged victim’s wife filed before the Office of the Attorney General, this process was on the preliminary investigation stage. On February 17, 1998 an order was issued to file away the disciplinary proceeding, order that was appealed by the petitioners and reversed by the Attorney General on July 8, 1998. However, on January 23, 2001 the Prosecutor decided to file away the investigation on a provisional basis. 18. The petitioners state that they filed a restitution action before the Administrative Court of Cundinamarca – Section Three, which was admitted on May 19, 1995. The Court ruled on October 30, 2001, rejecting the claims, indicating that the responsibility of the State had not been proven. The petitioners state that the decision was appealed and later confirmed by the Council of State on June 23, 2011. B. Position of the State 19. With regard to the facts, the State believes the petitioners are confusing two different incidents that took place on the morning of May 13, 1993; the disappearance of Mr. Pedro Julio Movilla Galarcio and the events related to the arrest of Pedro Julián Pabón Díaz. 20. In this regard, the State indicates that on May 13, 1993, around 8:00 a.m., Mr. Movilla took his daughter to the John F. Kennedy school, promising to pick her up at 11:00 a.m., since that time, he has been disappeared. On the other hand, in the area near the school, around 9:00 a.m., members of the national police arrested Mr. Pabón Díaz, who was drunk and shooting into the air. Mr. Pabón Díaz was arrested and his weapon was seized. Once the seizure requirements were completed, he was released. 21. The State maintains that this petition must be declared inadmissible because it does not meet the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies requirement established in Article 46.1 a) of the Convention. It also believes that the exceptions to the exhaustion of domestic remedies under Article 46.2 b) and c) would not apply. 22. In this regard, the State points out that there is a criminal process at the domestic level that is in the processing stage, so that the petitioners have not exhausted the criminal action. It states that the criminal investigation recorded under No. 096 was heard by various judicial as well as investigative authorities who made numerous efforts to clarify the facts, but so far that task has been impossible. 23. The State maintains that the investigations were conducted diligently and within a reasonable period of time given the complexity of the case. It points out that the circumstances surrounding Mr. Movilla’s disappearance seriously complicated the investigative activity since various hypotheses emerged regarding his disappearance that required different logical lines of investigation. It also states that the progress made in the criminal process should be analyzed in the context of the Colombian situation, the complexity of which makes the administration of justice unwieldy. 24. As for actions taken by the judicial authorities, the State points out that intense investigative efforts were made in both the criminal and disciplinary processes and that the authorities ordered the taking of evidence to determine whether Mr. Movilla had actually been the subject of military intelligence activities and had been followed by members of the security forces. It maintains that despite the significant amount of investigative work done, there is no evidence that could be used to establish the motive for and the perpetrator of Mr. Movila’s disappearance. 3