remedies.31 However, the jurisprudence of the Court also suggests that, when a state is faced with numerous alleged violations and strong indicators that those violations fall into a pattern of political persecution, the domestic remedy employed may be assumed to be ineffective if some minimal proportion of success is not achieved.32 The Colombian State's failure to successfully conclude criminal proceedings in cases involving the Patriotic Union suggests that the remedy provided by the domestic criminal justice system of Colombia is ineffective. 62. Other evidence in the record corroborates the ineffectiveness of the domestic criminal proceedings as a remedy in the case of persecution of members of the Patriotic Union. In a hearing before the Commission held on October 8, 1996, the General Director of the Colombian Office of the Prosecutor, Dr. Armando Sarmiento Mantilla, gave testimony regarding the criminal investigations carried out in relation to the persecution of the membership of the Patriotic Union. He stated that the Office of the Prosecutor did not have competence to investigate the crimes committed against the members of the Patriotic Union as a group, because the acts of violence were committed in various departments of Colombia by different actors. He stated that the lack of connection between the cases therefore precluded any form of joint investigation. The inability or refusal of the Office of the Prosecutor to investigate these cases in a systematic manner, despite the evidence indicating that they fall into a pattern of persecution, necessarily hinders the effectiveness of the remedy of criminal prosecution in the present case. 63. The Court has established that domestic remedies need not be attempted where they exist in law but not in fact, as shown by a pattern of ineffectiveness of those remedies.33 The petitioners have provided significant evidence establishing an exception to exhaustion based on a pattern of ineffectiveness of domestic remedies in addressing the violations committed against the Patriotic Union. The State has had an opportunity to refute that evidence and has failed to do so. The State has provided no evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness of the legally available domestic remedies. 64. The Court has established that, under these circumstances, an objection to admissibility by a State on the grounds of failure to exhaust domestic remedies may be rejected.34 The Commission therefore does not accept the State's objection to admissibility on the grounds of failure to exhaust domestic remedies. The Commission expressly reserves its decision on the substantive issues relating to judicial remedies, which decision may be guided by the presentation of further evidence on those issues during the analysis of this case on the merits. 65. Because domestic remedies have not been exhausted, the requirement set forth in Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention that the petition be filed within a period of six months following the date of the notification of the final ruling in the domestic proceedings does not apply. The Commission therefore rejects the State's contention that the petition does not meet the technical requirements for admission because it does not provide information which would allow a determination regarding the six-month deadline. 66. The provision regarding time limits applicable in the present case is that found in Article 38(2) of the Regulations of the Commission. That provision establishes that, "the deadline for presentation of a petition to the Commission shall be within a reasonable period of time . . . as from the date on which the alleged violation of rights has occurred." 67. The original petition in the case addressed alleged violations committed against the members of the Patriotic Union between 1985 and 1993. The petition was filed on December 16, 1993. The Commission considers that the petition was filed within a reasonable time frame after the occurrence of the alleged violations, taking into account that all the violations are allegedly linked by a pattern of persecution against the members of the Patriotic Union. E. 31 32 33 34 Previous reference to the violations alleged in the present case Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Sentence of July 29, 1988, par. 67. See id., pars. 76-77. See id., pars. 66, 68, 76-79. See id., pars. 68, 76-81. 10