12 35. Colombia stated in its brief filing objections that this Court does not have competence to hear the matter because remedies under domestic law have not been exhausted. The State submitted a report of the procedural actions that had taken place between January and August 1998 that, in its opinion, “[had] modified substantially” the situation. Colombia affirmed that the measures taken by the Human Rights Unit of the Office of the Prosecutor General demonstrate “the existence of an adequate, appropriate and effective recourse in the instant case”. By virtue of its arguments, the State requested the Court to abstain from hearing this case. In its written reply, the Commission stated that it had duly submitted this application, on the basis of Article 46.2 of the American Convention, because, when it approved Report No. 10/98, seven years had passed since the facts occurred and the case was still in its preliminary phase under the military criminal justice system. The plaintiff rejected the notion that the change in the jurisdiction under which the case was being processed was a circumstance that substantially modified the situation. The Commission affirmed that, in the instant case, the domestic remedies filed had been neither adequate nor effective. 36. The issue of failure to exhaust domestic remedies was considered at greater length in the public hearing held before the Court on May 31, 1999. Colombia emphasized the subsidiary nature of international jurisdiction on human rights compared with the domestic jurisdiction. In the instant case, the State maintained that the action under administrative law had been exhausted and had been appropriate, while the criminal action had still not been exhausted and was “evolving in one way in the face of probative difficulties”. The State requested that the Court declare the application inadmissible “since there are still domestic remedies that have not been exhausted.” The Commission recalled that the facts on which this case was based occurred on January 23, 1991, and that up until March 1998, the proceeding was being processed before the military criminal justice system without the investigation stage having been completed. It stated that, in comparison with this case, in April 1993, the Tribunal for actions under administrative law of the Department of Nariño had already rendered judgment on the responsibility of the members of the National Police Force, and this was confirmed by the Council of State. The Commission mentioned also that the proceeding in which the police who took part in the facts were absolved of disciplinary responsibility had only lasted one week. The Commission then considered the conduct of the military criminal justice system in Colombia and said that “it did not qualify as an independent, impartial tribunal, as required by the law and by international human rights legislation.” Lastly, it referred to the scope that action under administrative law should have in the instant case. 37. One of the conditions established by the American Convention for a petition or communication to be admitted by the Commission is that “the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law” (Article 46.1a). There are some exceptions to this rule, including “unwarranted delay” in the final judgment (Article 46.2c). 38. In the instant case, the parties agree that the facts on which the case is based occurred in January 1991. The State has not provided a satisfactory