48. The Commission, however, did not determine that the claims could not be processed on an individual case basis on the grounds that the petition was generic or collective. Rather, the Commission believed at the time that the large number of victims and claims made the petition inappropriate for processing as a single case under the individual petition system. However, as noted above, the Commission possesses and has exercised the competence to consider numerous individual claims in a single case so long as the claims are adequately connected. There exists no provision in the Convention, in the Statute of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights or in the Regulations of the Commission which limits the number of individual claims or victims which may be considered in this manner. 49. The Commission opted for the publication of its observations regarding the claims of violations against labor union activists in the special country report relating to Colombia based upon its consideration of the alternative that would be most favorable for the protection of the human rights established in the Convention. The Commission possesses, pursuant to article 41 of the Convention, a variety of functions and powers. The Commission makes the decision to employ one or more of these functions or powers in relation to a given situation, always considering the overarching function of the Commission to promote respect for and defense of human rights.26 The competence to process individual petitions and to prepare such studies or reports as it considers advisable are among those functions and powers listed in Article 41. 50. Taking into account the nature of the set of claims of violations against labor union members and the fact that the Commission received the complaint in the context of an on-site visit to Colombia, the Commission decided to publish the information about the set of claims in the special country report resulting out of the on-site visit rather than to process the case through the individual petition mechanism. This decision does not constitute a precedent which precludes the processing of the present case through the individual petition system. D. Exhaustion of domestic remedies and the period for submission of a petition to the Commission 51. The State has argued that the present case is inadmissible, pursuant to Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention for lack of compliance with the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies. The State also argues that the case is inadmissible, pursuant to Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention, for failure to file the petition with the Commission within the appropriate time period. 52. The State reiterates, in relation to the question of exhaustion of domestic remedies, its argument that the petition filed in this case does not meet the technical requirements for admissibility, because it does not adequately specify the details of the individual violations alleged. The State asserts that, as a result, compliance with the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies cannot be determined. Therefore, according to the State, the petition does not include "information on whether the remedies under domestic law have been exhausted or whether it has been impossible to do so," as required by Article 32(d) of the Regulations of the Commission. 53. As the Commission previously noted, the petitioners did provide lists of the violations alleged including the necessary details, including the names of the victims and the date and place of each alleged violation. The Commission forwarded that information to the State. The State therefore possesses information which would allow it to determine the status of domestic proceedings which have been initiated. In fact, the Report of the Ombudsman included information about the proceedings initiated in many individual cases. 54. Even more importantly, the petition and other briefs submitted by the petitioners contain important information regarding the overall ineffectiveness of domestic remedies in addressing the crimes committed against the Patriotic Union. This information is of utmost importance in guiding the Commission in its decision on the question of exhaustion of domestic remedies, without reference to individual attempts to exhaust domestic remedies. The State received this 26 See I/A Court H.R., International Responsibility for the Promulgation and Enforcement of Laws in Violation of the Convention (articles 1 and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-14/94 of December 9, 1994, par. 43. 8