58. The State claims that the petition was lodged extemporaneously before the IACHR in violation of the criterion of a reasonable time period for lodging the petition. It asserts that the petition does not satisfy the IACHR’s requirement of a reasonable time period and that there is nearly a decade separating the moment the petition was lodged from the incidents contained therein. It states that Mr. Vélez Restrepo’s procedural activity in domestic as well as international forums was intended to delay the lodging of the petition before the IACHR. 59. It states that in the current context and the particular circumstances, there is no ongoing violation or objective circumstance of fear that could be substantiated, against Mr. Vélez Restrepo and his family, and therefore the extemporaneity in lodging the petition is unwarranted. IV. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY A. The competence of the Commission ratione materiae, ratione personae, ratione temporis y ratione loci 60. The petitioners are entitled under Article 44 of the American Convention to lodge complaints before the IACHR. The petition indicates as alleged victims Luis Gonzalo Vélez Restrepo, Aracelly Román Amariles, Mateo Vélez Román and Juliana Vélez Román, natural persons with respect to whom Colombia has undertaken to respect and ensure the rights enshrined in the American Convention. With regard to the State, the Commission points out that Colombia has been a State party to the American Convention since July 31, 1973, when it deposited the respective ratification instrument. Therefore, the Commission has competence ratione personae to take up the petition. 61. The Commission has competence ratione materiae because the petitioners are alleging violations of rights protected by the American Convention. Likewise, the Commission has competence ratione loci to take up the petition insofar as it alleges violations of rights protected in the American Convention that would have occurred within the territory of Colombia, a State party to that treaty. Finally, the Commission has competence ratione temporis insofar as the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights protected in the American Convention were in force for the State on the date that the events described in the petition allegedly occurred. B. Other admissibility requirements 1. Duplication of proceedings and international res judicata 62. In its observations concerning the petition, the State of Colombia claimed the existence of litispendence with respect to the subject matter of the petition in another international proceeding, since the case was supposedly pending before the United Nations Human Rights Committee, with identical victims, facts and petitions, and therefore does not comply with the requirements set forth in Articles 46(1) (c) and 47 (d) of the Convention and 33(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the IACHR. The petitioners, for their part, indicate that prior to lodging the petition before the IACHR, they had withdrawn their complaint before that Committee and the latter had made no decision in the case. 63. In the case in point, the Commission observes that the individual communications procedure established by Articles 1 through 5 of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights empowers the Committee to adopt decisions on specific facts and dispute resolution measures, similar to the provisions contained in the American Convention with respect to the Inter-American Commission. As a result, the competence and powers of the United Nations Human Rights Committee in the resolution of individual communications pursuant to that instrument can lead to international duplication in the terms set forth by Articles 46 (1) c) and 47(d) of the Convention. On previous occasions, the IACHR 9