responsible for the events described herein. The disciplinary sanctions adopted, the final outcome of which is unknown, do not constitute an adequate legal remedy and the proceedings initiated by the Office of the Prosecutor were summarily closed without ever having established the responsibility of the individuals implicated. Therefore, the petitioners consider that the domestic proceedings have proven inadequate and ineffective and have been characterized by unwarranted delays in arriving at a decision. 44. They assert that the petition was lodged within a reasonable time frame in accordance with the criteria set forth by the Commission and its practice in this regard. They claim that it was not possible to lodge the complaint before the IACHR prior to July 2005 for a number of reasons, including the difficulties associated with forced exile, the poverty they have experienced as a result of the ongoing, continuous violations of their human rights attributable to the State, and the ineffectiveness of domestic remedies to investigate, prosecute and punish those responsible for the alleged events. They indicate that in the United States they are unemployed, have no family or friends, and cannot speak the language. This has obliged them to devote all of their energy to merely surviving. They indicate that only recently, in 2001, were they able to obtain pro bono legal representation through the Human Rights Clinic of Columbia University’s Law School, which only had human resources available to litigate in English and which, in 2002, submitted the petition to the Committee that was subsequently withdrawn, as indicated earlier. Finally, they indicate that the petition should be admitted since the domestic remedies were inadequate and ineffective and the case has never been, and is currently not being, decided in any other international proceeding (see supra para. 41). B. Position of the State 45. It claims that in 1996, there was a public announcement that peasant mobilizations would take place throughout the national territory in the month of August, with the participation of individuals involved in growing and processing coca leaf and referred to as “cocalera marches.” 46. It indicates that according to intelligence provided by the Ministry of Defense, “…the outlaw armed group FARC was pressuring thousands of peasants to oppose the eradication of illicit crops in Caquetá” and this group “…controlled drug trafficking which supplied it with substantial economic dividends and had the capacity to promote marches by peasants and/or coca workers.” 47. It claims that in view of this situation, and the constitutional duty to protect the civilian population, the Public Force, by means of the 12th Brigade of the National Army headquartered in Florencia-Caquetá, proceeded to conduct the necessary operations to ensure that the march was carried out peacefully. They report that once the march began, the Brigade received information that it had been infiltrated by FARC members, and its presence was therefore required during the entire march. 48. It asserts that on August 20, 1996, the Commando of the Juanambú Battalion, a smaller Operational Unit [Unidad Operativa menor], responsible for enforcement during the march, issued Operations Order Dignity containing precise instructions for members of the Public Force to protect the civilian population and to avoid confrontations with the demonstrators. They assert that the instructions authorized the use of a loudspeaker system and, should that fail, tear gas, but that the use of firearms was prohibited at all times, including shots fired into the air, and the use of sticks or stones was also prohibited to contain the demonstration. 49. It indicates that the events that unfolded in Caquetá on August 29, 1996, despite the instructions issued initially, were acknowledged in a timely fashion by the State, and that the executive and judicial authorities issued a public reprimand for the order given by a one of the troops to seize Mr. Vélez Restrepo’s video camera. They claim that this reprimand was included in the investigations and in the sanctions meted out to those responsible. 50. It further reports that several people were injured and three civilians were killed during the events in Caquetá. This led to the opening of a preliminary criminal investigation under the auspices of Military Instruction Court 66, in order to establish the alleged responsibility of 7