26. Concerning the alleged failure to comply with its obligations regarding recognition and protection of the U’wa territory, the State argues that the demarcation of the U’wa Unified Reservation “was the result of an agreement signed by the Ministry of the Environment and the representatives of the U’wa Indigenous Communities on July 19, 1999.” The State recounts the measures that INCODER took between 2005 and 2013 in the process of securing the indigenous territory against third-party acts and claims, expanding it and granting title to it. The State argues that thanks to these measures, the majority of the territory has been regularized and progress has been made toward the acquisition of 365 land parcels involving a surface area of 15,133,1062 hectares and 136 improvements. The State argues that the fact that the Cocuy National Park overlaps the U’wa’s ancestral territory is not a violation of domestic law and does not affect the integrity of the U’wa territory, since “a special regime to benefit the indigenous community” is established. Based on the foregoing, the State requests that the claims made regarding the recognition and protection of the U’wa territory be declared inadmissible because they do not tend to establish violations of human rights. 27. The State further contends that the alleged acts of violence and impunity have “no causal nexus to the original facts set forth in the petition under consideration in this matter and therefore should not be added to the petition under study.” It adds that according to information supplied by the National Prosecution Service, the motives are unrelated to the Project. As for the alleged evictions, said to have occurred in January and February of 2000 and to have caused the deaths of three indigenous children, the State points out that the National Human Rights Unit of the National Prosecution Service conducted a preliminary inquiry, classified as No. 733. It reports that the investigation found that two of the children alleged to have been killed were actually alive and the third child’s death was accidental. The State indicates that the Prosecution Service observed that there was no evidence of any police mistreatment of members of the indigenous community. Accordingly, the State asks that these claims be dismissed, since they were duly taken up and substantiated by competent and independent authorities observing due process. The State contends that the petitioners would have the IACHR act as a court of fourth instance. IV. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY A. The Commission’s competence ratione personae, ratione loci, ratione temporis and ratione materiae 28. The petitioners are, in principle, authorized by Article 44 of the American Convention to submit petitions to the Commission. The alleged victims named in the petition are the U’wa indigenous people and its members,1 whose rights under the American Convention the State pledged to respect and protect.2 As regards the State, the Commission points out that Colombia has been a State party to the American Convention since July 31, 1973, the date on which it deposited its instrument of ratification. Therefore, the Commission has competence ratio personae to review the petition. 29. The Commission also has competence ratione loci to review the petition as it alleges violations of rights protected under the American Convention and said to have occurred within the territory of Colombia, a State party to that convention. The Commission also has competence ratione temporis as the obligation to respect and protect the rights recognized in the American Convention was already in force for the State on the date the facts alleged in the petition were said to have occurred. Finally, the Commission has competence 1 See in this regard IACHR, Report No. 63/10, Garifuna Community of Punta Piedra and Its Members (Honduras), March 24, 2010, paragraph 32; IACHR, Report No. 141/09, Diaguita Agricultural Communities of the Huascoltinos and the Members Thereof (Chile), December 30, 2009, paragraph 28; IACHR, Report No. 79/09, Ngobe Indigenous Communities and Their Members in the Chingola River Valley (Panama), paragraph 26. 2 The alleged victims are members of the U’wa people, who live in communities with a social and political structure. The U’wa people live in a specific geographic area, and its members can be individualized and identified by name. According to the information supplied by the petitioners, the U’wa numbers some 7,000 persons living in the Sierra Nevada del Cocuy in northeastern Colombia, an area spanning the departments of Santander, Norte de Santander, Boyacá, Arauca and Casanare. See in this regard: I/A Court H.R., Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community, Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, paragraph 149; IACHR, Report No. 62/04, the Kichwa Peoples of the Sarayaku community and its members (Ecuador), paragraph 47; IACHR, Report No. 58/09, Kuna of Madungandí and Emberá of the Bayano Indigenous Peoples and Their Members (Panama), paragraph 26. 6