1996 attack and the subsequent harassment suffered by the journalist and his family. They indicate that no agreement was ultimately reached because the State did not take responsibility for the events and the sum offered was considered insufficient by the petitioners, thus concluding the administrative conciliation process. 37. They note that the aforementioned proceeding does not constitute an adequate means of compensating human rights violations and does not need to be exhausted. e. Ordinary criminal proceeding before the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation 38. They claim that the Attorney General of the Nation has not charged any suspect in the incidents perpetrated against the petitioners, including: the attack perpetrated by military personnel on August 29, 1996, in the municipality of Morelia, Caquetá department against Mr. Vélez Restrepo; the threats and harassment against Mr. Vélez Restrepo and his family, even though they were reported directly to the Office of the Attorney General on two occasions; the “attempted forced disappearance” on October 6, 1997. They indicate that they are unaware of whether any investigation was even opened in the first two incidents mentioned. 39. They presented numerous, specific complaints to the Offices of the Prosecutor General and the Attorney General, with information related directly to the threats and persecution they were experiencing. They sent a letter in September 1996, after individuals pretending to be officials from that office disturbed the Vélez family at home. In October 1996, they approached the Office of the Attorney General to report death threats. In August 1997, Mr. Vélez again notified the Office of the Attorney General about the death threats and that he and his family were in danger. The Office of the Attorney General assured them that the complaints would be included in a broader investigation in progress against military officials. 40. They indicate that they lodged similar complaints before the Special Administrative Human Rights Unit of the Ministry of the Interior and the Office of the Presidential Advisor for Human Rights, which provided a certain degree of protection for the petitioners after determining that they were in grave danger, but did not open any sort of criminal investigation. 41. They claim that the only thing they were able to learn was that the Unit for Offenses against Liberty of the Office of the Attorney General of Medellín launched an investigation for the crime of kidnapping against Mr. Vélez Restrepo, the final outcome of which could not be ascertained. With regard to the admissibility requirements of the petition 42. They state that under the auspices of Columbia University’s Human Rights Clinic they lodged a petition before the United Nations Human Rights Committee of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in early 2002 (hereinafter “the Human Rights Committee” or “the Committee”). They contend, however, that no situation of international litispendence exists since the Committee informed them that the complaint was written in English and hence could not be taken up unless it was resubmitted in Spanish, the official language of the Colombian State. They assert that on June 26, 2003, prior to lodging the petition before the Inter-American Commission, the petitioners withdrew their complaint from the Committee before it was forwarded to the State. They indicate that the Human Rights Committee has confirmed that the case is not under consideration by that organ pursuant to a decision adopted in July 2003 at its 78th session. This decision was communicated to the petitioners on September 20, 2004.6 43. They assert that the exception to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies is in order since, from the date on which the events began up to the present time, there has been no adequate investigation or punishment through the appropriate channels of those 6 According to the September 20, 2004 letter from the United Nations Human Rights Committee which indicated that as of its 78th session held in July 2003, the communication presented on behalf of Mr. Vélez Restrepo and his family was no longer being considered before that body. 6