military personnel in this incident. They contend that this investigation concluded with a judgment dated October 29, 2004, in which it was decided not to open a formal criminal proceeding insofar as it was impossible to infer the responsibility of the agents in the incidents based on the evidence. 51. It states that the peasant march was covered by the national and international press and that the acts perpetrated against Mr. Vélez Restrepo were isolated incidents, since there was no problem whatsoever with the coverage by the rest of the news correspondents. 52. It points out that the attack against Mr. Vélez Restrepo occurred in a framework of legality, in which the Public Forces were discharging their constitutional duties. It claims, therefore, that the attack against Mr. Vélez Restrepo was not motivated by an indiscriminate attack on the civilian population as the petitioners have stated, in relation to peasants having been brutally beaten by other members of the Battalion, assertions which were duly investigated by the competent authorities. 53. It states that the incidents denounced by the petitioners were investigated first by the commander of the 12th Brigade, General Néstor Ramírez Mejía on August 30, 1996, who imposed sanctions of severe, formal, and simple punishment on several officers, sub-officers, and soldiers involved in the incidents. It indicates that it was up to the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Nation to investigate General Ramírez Mejía for the incidents claimed in the petition, and that office decided to order the case against him closed after concluding that he did not order or tolerate the alleged aggressions and that “he himself ordered the investigation which led to the punishment of those responsible." Therefore, in this particular case there was an effective and appropriate remedy for the disciplinary sanction of those officers and subofficers in the chain of command who participated in the incident of August 29, 1996. 54. It indicates that Military Criminal Instruction Court 67 had opened a criminal investigation into the incidents set forth in the petition. However, since the military facilities where the Court was located had been occupied by guerrillas of the FARC, the file pertaining to the aforementioned criminal investigation was lost, for which it was impossible for the State to supply a copy of the decisions. It claims that notwithstanding that circumstance, the opening of criminal and disciplinary investigations and the outcomes of the latter, demonstrate the State’s total disapproval of the behavior of its agents. It therefore asserts that “[domestic] remedies have been effectively exhausted by the petitioner”7 and that the remedies that were presented and exhausted were adequate and effective. 55. It requests the IACHR to declare the case inadmissible, claiming that the petition does not satisfy the admissibility requirements set forth in Articles 46(1)(b) and (c) of the ACHR, nor Articles 32.2 and 33 of the IACHR’s Rules of Procedures due to the existence of international litispendence before the United Nations Human Rights Committee and due to the failure to abide by the time period for filing the petition. 56. It states that the withdrawal of the petition before the Human Rights Commission alleged by the petitioners cannot have legal effects until due notification has been made to the State, since the latter was aware that the proceeding was still in progress before the Committee. It indicates that while it is not the petitioners’ responsibility that the State did not receive timely notification of this withdrawal, “it is also the case that while said notification has not been officially given, it is clear that the process remains under discussion in the headquarters of the Covenant’s Committee.” 57. It states that the withdrawal was done with the sole objective of lodging a new petition before the IACHR without allowing the Committee to pronounce on the merits of the matter. It indicates that the petitioners had no obstacles to access to the IACHR and claims that the dual proceedings are a case of human rights forum shopping, and that the petitioners have not conducted themselves in good faith in their international litigation or in keeping with procedural ethics, causing resources to be wasted. 7 Section 2.3 of the observations of the State to Petition No. 864-05. 8