4 B. Position of the State 17. The State submitted detailed information on the handling of the proceedings filed in the domestic jurisdiction due to the disappearance of Víctor Manuel Isaza Uribe. Regarding the criminal investigation, the State reported that it ended w ith a ruling of August 25, 1997 in w hich the Regional Prosecutor’ s Office of Medellín ordered suspension of the preliminary investigation, deeming that the evidence presented did not yield results that w ould clarify the events. 18. Regarding the disciplinary proceeding, the State indicated that Carmenza Vélez – w ife of Víctor Manuel Isaza Uribe – filed a complaint w ith the Assistant Prosecutor’ s Office for the Defense of Human Rights because of the disappearance of her husband. That proceeding ended w ith a ruling of October 20, 1992 in w hich the Prosecutor’ s Office ordered the archiving of the proceedings because there w as no evidence that w ould implicate any public servant in the disappearance of the alleged victim. Finally, regarding the contentious-administrative proceeding, the State indicated that on November 26, 1993 the Administrative Court of Antioquia denied the claims in the complaint, considering that the circumstances related to the disappearance of Víctor Manuel Isaza Uribe led the Chamber to conclude that his disappearance involved an escape facilitated by armed third persons, given that a conviction w as imminent . That decision w as upheld on appeal on September 23, 1994 by Section Three of the Council of State. 19. In addition, the State alleges that the petition is inadmissible in that it does not characterize violations of Articles 7, 8, and 25 of the American Convention. Regarding Article 7 of the Convention, the State alleged that it can be concluded based on analysis of the body of evidence from the criminal, disciplinary, and contentious-administrative proceedings that there w as not even the slightest indication pointing to participation by agents of the State in these events. Regarding Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, the State alleges that the lack of criminal findings itself does not generate or even represent a violation of the American Convention, in that a serious, impartial investigation w ithout delays is involved to w hich the victims or their relatives could easily have had access. In this regard, the State maintains that these requirements w ere met by Colombian justice and, additionally, there is no indication in the criminal proceeding that the relatives of the alleged victim joined the proceeding as civil parties thereto. 20. Finally, the Stat e asks, in view of the inactivity of the petitioners in their response to the Commission for a period of tw elve years, that the Commission proceed to archive the petition in accordance w ith Article 42(1) of its Rules of Procedure and, if the case is not archived, that the Commission declare the petition inadmissible since the alleged facts do not represent violations of the American Convention, in accordance w ith Article 47(b) thereof . IV. ANALYSIS OF COMPETENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence 21. In principle, the petitioners are authorized by Article 44 of the American Convention to submit petitions to the Commission. The petition indicates as alleged victims individuals w ith respect to w hom the Colombian State committed to respect and guarantee the rights enshrined in the American Convention. With regard to the State, the Commission points out that Colombia has been a State Party to the Convention since July 31, 1973, the date on w hich it deposited its ratifying instrument . Therefore, the Commission is competent ratione personae to examine the petition. 22. In addition, the Commission is competent ratione loci to hear the petition, in that it alleges violations of rights protected in the American Convention that w ould have occurred w ithin the territory of Colombia, a State Party to that convention.