19. Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention establishes as a requirement for a petition to be admitted “... that the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law.” In this case, the State expressly recognized, in the hearing held in the 110th regular session, that the domestic remedies had been exhausted by the victim. In view of this declaration, the Commission considers the requirement set forth in Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention to have been met. 2. Time period for submitting the petition 20. In the course of the hearing held by the Commission at its 110th regular session, the State alleged that the petitioners had failed to satisfy the six-month time period for submission of petitions, as required by Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention. The State also made reference to this allegation in its communication of September 17, 2001. This provision establishes that for a petition to be admitted by the IACHR, it must be submitted within six months from the date on which the person allegedly injured has been notified of the final decision of the domestic courts in relation to his or her claim. 21. As appears from the information in the record, on June 10, 1999, after an acción de tutela brought by the victim was rejected, the ruling of the Superior Court of the Judicial District of Bogotá that decided to archive the case over personal injuries5 brought at the initiative of the alleged victim became a firm judgment. The Commission notes that the petition was received by the Executive Secretariat of the IACHR on November 5, 1999, and that additional information was requested of the petitioners that was sent in by June 1, 2000. On June 13, 2000, after analyzing the documents provided by the petitioners, the Commission decided to begin the procedure and transmit to the State the pertinent parts of both the initial claim and of the additional information received at a later date. In view of the procedural activity and the dates indicated above, the Commission concludes that the petition was submitted within the six-month period required by Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention. 3. Duplication of procedures and res judicata 22. It does not appear from the record that the subject matter of the petition is pending before any other procedure for international settlement, nor that it reproduces a petition already examined by this or any other international body. Accordingly, the requirements established at Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention are considered to have been met. 4. Characterization of the facts alleged 23. The State has alleged that the decision of the domestic courts that dismissed the claim by Mr. Gutiérrez Soler based on the provisions of Colombia’s domestic law show that in this case, it has met its obligations under the American Convention. Accordingly, it challenges the competence of the Commission to undertake what it considers a review of the decisions adopted in the domestic courts, as a fourth instance, or court of last resort. 24. In this respect, the Commission considers that it is competent to examine the claim submitted by the petitioners, including its allegations with respect to access to the judicial protection to which he has a right, insofar as they refer to rights protected by the American Convention. In effect, the elements that appear in the file indicate that, if shown to be true, the petitioners’ allegations regarding the acts of torture allegedly perpetrated against Wilson Gutiérrez Soler, his prosecution based on a self-incriminating statement allegedly made under duress, and the use of the military jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute the persons responsible, tend to establish violations of the rights to humane treatment, a fair trial, and judicial protection, guaranteed in Articles 5, 8, and 25, in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention. Accordingly, the claim satisfies the requirements set forth in Articles 47(b) and (c) thereof. 5 Order of June 8, 1999, of the Superior Court of the Judicial District of Bogotá, Criminal Chamber (Act 50/99). 4