prosecutors assigned to the case had to drop it and in some cases they were forced to leave the country due to death threats received during the investigation. On March 15, 2001, after a ten-month delay, the judge with jurisdiction in the case rejected the evidence and issued a judgment absolving all of the accused. 14. Petitioners allege that when the claim was submitted to the IACHR, no persons were being held in custody in connection with the investigation. The Office of the Attorney General, for its part, had filed an appeal to have the judgment of acquittal revoked. In view of the fact that no one stands accused or indicted for the death of Jesús María Valle Jaramillo, the petitioners alleged on that occasion that the local courts did not process the case in a timely manner. They also note the lack of disciplinary investigations into the involvement of members of the Army, Police or public officials, and that the period of five years for filing charges was about to expire. 15. In response to the State’s argument on the failure to exhaust domestic remedies, the petitioners alleged that while the claim does not come under Article 46(1) of the Convention, it is not because the disciplinary and contentious-administrative investigations are pending resolution, but because four years after the facts, criminal investigations are still pending.4 The petitioners consider that the State has not clarified the facts or punished all the persons responsible given that the judgment in which two persons were convicted of the assassination did not clarify the circumstances surrounding the incident, the motives, the identity of the perpetrators, or the relationship between the crime and the threats made to Jesús María Valle Jaramillo prior to his murder, or to his reports of links between members of the Army and the paramilitary groups operating in the area. Accordingly, they consider that the criminal investigation that the State considers concluded has not been an effective remedy under the standards of the inter-American system. Finally, the petitioners argued that administrative and disciplinary remedies are not, under the case-law of the inter-American system, adequate remedies for protecting the rights violated. 16. Furthermore, as regards the State’s argument that the “fourth instance” formulation would apply if the IACHR examines the domestic criminal proceeding, the petitioners recognized that the judgment handed down by the local court represents a major stride forward in the administration of justice. Nonetheless, they consider that the motives for the assassination, the totality of co-perpetrators of the assassination, and the persons who planned it have not been determined.5 They allege that as it did not produce the results for which it was established, it was not an effective remedy in light of the American Convention. B. Position of the State 17. The State alleges that it has met its obligation to administer justice in relation to the assassination of Jesús María Valle. It further alleges that criminal convictions have been handed down and that the investigations are ongoing. The State also indicates that there has been a disciplinary resolution and that the contentious-administrative proceeding is moving forward.6 18. The information provided by the State in its arguments indicates that initially the criminal investigation into the death of Jesús María Valle Jaramillo was carried out by the Fiscalía Regional de Medellín as Case 26,017, and that arrest warrants were issued for Jaime Angulo Osorio, Elkin Dario Granada López, Alexander Vallejo Echeverry, Carlos Alberto Bedoya Marulanda, Omar Tobón Echeverry, and Gilma Patricia Gaviria Palacio. Also listed as suspects were Jorge Eliécer Rodríguez Guzmán, Alvaro Goez Mesa, Carlos Castaño Gil, and Francisco Antonio Osorio. On May 21, 1999, Messrs. Jaime Alberto Angulo Osorio, Carlos Castaño Gil, and Francisco Antonio Angulo Osorio were indicted, accused of responsibility for the assassination of Jesús María Valle Jaramillo, and co-perpetrators of the crime of forming, directing, and financing armed groups that operate outside the law. At the same time, an 4 5 6 Communication submitted by the petitioners May 20, 2002. Communications submitted by the petitioners on May 20, 2002, and November 18, 2002. Note EE.50988 from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Colombia, of December 17, 2001, and note DDH 30216 from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Colombia of August 15, 2002. 3