directly to the Public Prosecutor’s Office and given that the Office of the Departmental Attorney failed to advise the Public Prosecutor’s Office because they involved members of the State security forces: members of the Army, Police, Prosecution, CTI who threatened to detain her even when there was no arrest warrant against her. 8 The petitioner indicates that the Office of the Departmental Attorney of Antioquia initiated investigations and sent the investigation to the Office of the Departmental Attorney of Bogota. It also states that although two years have passed since the events in question occurred; no criminal inquiry has been conducted. 9 B. The State 17. The State contends that the violations alleged are not the work of its agents and that it is fulfilling its duty to investigate the facts and has taken steps to stop the violations of the human rights of the residents of Commune 13, in keeping with its obligation to protect and ensure. 18. The State alleges that the petitioner’s complaint does not comply with the rule requiring exhaustion of domestic remedies and should therefore be declared inadmissible. The State reports that the Office of Medellin Special Prosecutor 107 is conducting the criminal investigation into the threats alleged to have been made against Mrs. Ospina and her displacement. The investigation is classified as number 7155209, and is in the preliminary phase. Evidence is being taken to shed light on the facts and identify the authors of the alleged crimes. The State also reports judicial inspections were conducted, the scene of the events was visited, intelligence work was done in the area, the victim was located for amplification of her complaint, sworn statements were taken and the CTI was assigned specific functions. The Office of the Special Prosecutor for Human Rights sent copies to the appropriate authorities to decide whether an investigation should be undertaken. The State is of the view that it may be possible to establish the blame for Luz Dary Ospina Bastidas´ alleged displacement once the investigations have been completed. As regards the crime of intimidation, the State points out that its investigation is highly complex owing to the anonymity with which the delinquents involved operate, and since the supposed victim found out by way of rumor it is difficult to establish the evidence that would lead to the identification of those responsible. 19. The State alleges that the exception based on an unwarranted delay in rendering justice does not apply because the time taken thus far is reasonable given the complexity of the case and the measures taken by the judicial authorities. It adds that despite the difficulty, the judicial authorities have been diligent in pursuing this case and that the judicial proceedings have been conducted by law, carried out in sequence, and suitable for what the investigation requires. 20. The State points out that the Commune 13 situation has been a complicated one and that despite the State’s efforts to restore normalcy and its full authority in Commune 13, the job has always been difficult; it adds that the crimes that take the greatest toll in the area are murders, 10 terrorism, kidnapping, extortion and seizure of properties. Because of the situation in the area, the State had to step up its police operations in order to restore law and order in the commune. One such operation was “Operation Orion,” which was carried out in strict compliance with its duty to provide security and protection. 21. The State therefore requests that the IACHR find that there are no grounds for the exceptions allowed under Article 46 (2) and that the petition is therefore inadmissible. IV. COMPETENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence Original petition received by the IACHR on October 27, 2004, p. 5. Original petition received by the IACHR on October 27, 2004, p. 8. 10 Between January and mid 2002, 437 murders were recorded in Commune 13. The State’s observations, DDH.GOI/60162/2802, received at the Commission on December 12, 2006. 8 9 4