25. The State also alleges that Mr. Movilla’s disappearance would not constitute a violation of the Convention. It points out that this offense could not be attributed to the State considering that to date there is no evidence linking the members of the public authority of the Colombian State to the disappearance of Mr. Movilla. It also emphasizes that there is no link at all between the disappearance of the alleged victim and the arrest of Mr. Pabón Díaz. It also points out that, contrary to what the petitioners state, a sworn statement was taken from Mr. Pabón Díaz in a procedure carried out on March 18, 2013. IV. ANALYSIS OF COMPETENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence 26. The petitioners are, in principle, authorized by Article 44 of the American Convention to submit petitions to the Commission. The alleged victims are individuals with respect to whom the State has promised to guarantee the rights enshrined in the American Convention and the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. With respect to the State, the Commission indicates that Colombia has been a State Party to the American Convention since July 31, 1973 and to the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons since April 4, 2005, the dates on which it deposited the respective ratifying instruments. Therefore, the Commission is competent ratione personae to examine the petition. 27. In addition, the Commission is competent ratione temporis since the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights protected in the American Convention was already in effect for the State on the date the events alleged in the petition took place. The Commission notes that the Convention on Forced Disappearance took effect for Colombia on April 4, 2005. Therefore, the IACHR is competent ratione temporis with respect to the obligation in Article I of that Convention with respect to events subsequent to that date as regards the alleged continuation of and failure to clarify the crime of forced disappearance.2 28. The Commission is competent ratione loci to hear the petition since it alleges violations of rights protected in the American Convention that allegedly occurred within the territory of Colombia, a State Party to that Convention. Finally, the Commission is competent ratione materiae, because the petition reports possible violations of human rights protected by the American Convention and the applicable provisions of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. B. Admissibility Requirements 1. Exhaustion of remedies under domestic law 29. Article 46.1 a) of the American Convention requires the prior exhaustion of remedies available in the domestic jurisdiction in keeping with generally recognized principles of international law, as a requirement for admitting claims alleging violation of the American Convention. Article 46.2 of the Convention provides that the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies is not applicable when a) the domestic legislation of the state in question does not have due process of law for protecting the right or rights allegedly violated; b) the persons whose rights were allegedly violated have not been allowed access to domestic remedies, or have been kept from exhausting them; or c) there is an unwarranted delay in the decision on such remedies 30. The State alleges that the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies has not been met given that there are processes pending in the ordinary criminal jurisdiction; and that, due to the complexity of the matter and the actions taken by the domestic authorities, the exceptions contained in Article 46.2 of the Convention do not apply. On the other hand, the petitioners allege that the exception provided in Article 46.2 c) of the Convention is applicable considering that more than 20 years have passed since these events occurred and since the criminal investigation began without establishing criminal responsibilities. 2 See IACHR, Report No. 65/09, Petition 616-06, Admissibility, Juan Carlos Flores Bedregal, Bolivia, August 4, 2009, para. 45; and Report No. 72/07, Petition 319-01, Admissibility, Edgar Quiroga and Gildardo Fuentes, Colombia, October 15, 2007, para. 44. 4