27. According to the State, in 2008, the security cameras in the National Model Prison of Bogota were ordered inspected, and in 2009, another statement and judicial inspection were ordered. In 2010, among other steps, the prison guards who were supervising the Model Prison’s entrance on the day of the alleged facts were ordered to give a statement, as was the inspector of the National Institute for Penitentiaries and Jails (Instituto Nacional Penitenciario y Carcelario, INPEC). The statement of Jineth Bedoya Lima was also ordered expanded. 28. The State indicated that Jineth Bedoya gave sworn statements at several different points: specifically, on May 30, June 8, and June 19, 2000; May 22, 2003; August 28, 2007; August 11, 2010; and September 8 and November 26, 2011. It also reported that on January 18, 2011, the alleged victim’s civil suit was admitted, and it detailed the investigative actions ordered subsequently. The State highlighted that it was able to identify a number of suspects, which allowed it to accelerate and intensify the investigation. It indicated that it was able to get one of the accused, who was subject to the Justice and Peace Act, to confess his participation in the crimes against the journalist. 29. The State held that as a result of these measures, on December 12 and 13, 2013, the investigation identified Jesus Emiro Pereira Rivera and charged him with "aggravated criminal kidnapping in teleological connection with the torture of a protected individual and violent aggravated sexual assault of a protected person.” It also stated that on February 6, 2012, Alejandro Cárdenas Orozco testified from the La Picota prison in Bogota and agreed to plead guilty to the crime of “aggravated criminal kidnapping in teleological connection with the torture of a protected individual and violent aggravated sexual assault of a protected person.” in exchange for a reduced sentence. It also stated that on February 8, 2012, its investigation identified Mario Jaimes Mejia of the National Human Rights Unit of Bucaramanga and charged him with “aggravated criminal kidnapping in teleological connection with the torture of a protected individual and violent aggravated sexual assault of a protected person.” 30. Based on this, the State highlighted that since the case was reassigned to Specialized Public Prosecutor 49 of the National Human Right and International Humanitarian, it has gotten significant results. According to the State, these actions have allowed it to "solve a case that has been stuck for a number of years, not due to lack of activity in the investigation or to State apathy, but due to special circumstances beyond government control that blocked and permanently torpedoed the investigation’s normal progress due to the fact that the case is a special one in which members of paramilitary forces figure as possible perpetrators.” 31. As far as the petitioner’s pleading of unjustified delay, the State argued that the duration of the investigation was due to the complexity of the case given the absence of evidence that would allow for the identification and punishment of those responsible. The State explained that the alleged masterminds probably belong to a self-defense group, increasing difficulty "as a result of the special status of that organization within the process that the State of Colombia is pursuing." The State argued that this is evidenced by the fact that the only person confessing participation in the crimes took refuge in the Justice and Peace Act. In that sense, the State added that there is no deadline for complying with the obligation to pursue an investigation, try, and punish those responsible for the violations. It emphasized that the State’s management should focus on continuous action in the search for justice, "by moving forward with an investigation as the scope of each case dictates. Otherwise, the State would be subjected to impossible obligations.” Based on this, the State argued that the exception contained in Article 46(2)(c) of the Convention does not apply, and that therefore the petition is inadmissible due to a failure to exhaust domestic remedies. 32. Finally, the State asserted that the petition does not describe any facts that might tend to establish the violation of any of the rights guaranteed by the Convention, as the participation of State agents has not been demonstrated. The State indicated that although the petitioner gave indications regarding the possibility that State agents were involved, they "were mere statements and not conclusive or convincing enough to address this hypothesis." IV. ANALYSIS OF JURISDICTION AND ADMISSIBILITY