protection of human rights [acción de tutela] and the appeal filed in the administrative law court seeking nullification of the resolution. According to the information supplied by the parties, the petition seeking a constitutional writ of protection of human rights [acción de tutela] was decided by the Constitutional Court on February 3, 1997, whose ruling was not subject to challenge; on the other hand, the appeal for nullification culminated in the March 14, 1997 ruling issued by the Council of State. In this regard, the Commission notes that there is no dispute between the parties regarding exhaustion of domestic remedies, as the petitioners alleged that the domestic remedies had been exhausted with the actions they pursued. The State, for its part, did not challenge the contention that the domestic remedies had been exhausted nor did it make any argument to the effect that other adequate and effective remedies were available to the petitioners; instead, it maintained that the dispute surrounding the question of whether the consultation had been properly carried out was decided by the Council of State, which it asserted was the competent forum within the Colombian legal system. 34. The IACHR also notes that, according to the information available to it, the alleged oil exploration and drilling activities within U’wa territory reportedly continued over the course of the years and were said to have been the subject of a prior consultation process with representatives of the U’wa people. That process reportedly ended in 2006 with one party’s disavowal of the project and another’s refusal to participate in it. Here the IACHR takes note of the question that the Ministry of the Interior and Justice put to the Council of State concerning the legality of the consultation process for purposes of starting up the project. The Council of State answered the question on February 2, 2006, where it found that that the petroleum activities were viable under the domestic legal system. Thus, the Council of State, which the State contends is the competent authority, issued its finding wherein it confirmed enforcement of the Colombian legal system with respect to the consultation process carried out in connection with the other petroleum activities either conducted or to be conducted within the U’wa people’s ancestral territory.8 35. The Commission notes, moreover, that the alleged failure to effectively secure the U’wa people’s ancestral territory against any third party acts and claims and to grant the U’wa people formal title to that territory is not a point of contention between the parties. At least since 1999, the U’wa people have been petitioning the competent Colombian authorities, particularly INCORA, seeking formal title to their land. Based on the information made available to it, the Commission also observes that, for purposes of the petition’s admissibility, while certain measures have been taken to secure the U’wa people’s territory against third party acts and claims, expand it and grant the U’wa people formal title to that territory, as of now this process has reportedly still not been completed. Therefore, given the characteristics of the present petition and the time that has elapsed since the claims made in the petition are alleged to have occurred, the Commission considers that the exception provided in Article 46(2)(c) of the America Convention applies, which concerns an unwarranted delay in the domestic proceedings; hence, the rule requiring prior exhaustion of domestic remedies is not enforceable. 36. Invocation of the exceptions to the rule requiring exhaustion of domestic remedies, provided for in Article 46(2) of the Convention, is closely linked to the determination of possible violations of certain Convention-protected rights, such as the guarantees of access to justice. However, given its nature and purpose, Article 46(2) stands separate and apart from the Convention’s substantive provisions. Therefore, the determination as to whether the exceptions to the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies apply to the matter in question must be done prior to and separate from the analysis of the merits, because it relies on a standard of assessment that is different from the standard used to determine possible violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. 8 The Commission observes that in the present case, the State’s response to the alleged violations of the U’wa people’s rights is informed by other decisions of the Colombian Constitutional Court concerning the U’wa indigenous people. Specifically, the Commission notes that in judgment T-025 of January 22, 2004, the Colombian Constitutional Court wrote that an “unconstitutional state of affairs” existed, caused by the forced displacement made manifest by the persistent and perpetual violation of the rights of numerous indigenous peoples in Colombia. As part of the follow-up on compliance with that judgment, the Constitutional Court issued Order 004 of January 26, 2009 in which it concluded that the indigenous peoples in Colombia are in danger of physical and cultural extermination as a result of the armed conflict and forced displacement. The Court identified 35 indigenous peoples who faced particular danger, among them the U’wa people. The Court ordered the National Government to devise Ethnic Preservation Plans for these indigenous peoples. However, the information available to the IACHR suggests that this court order has reportedly not been effectively carried out. Constitutional Court of Colombia. Order No. 004 of 2009. Available [in Spanish] at: http://www.corteconstitucional.gov.co/relatoria/autos/2009/a004-09.htm . 8