in the absence of clarification, appropriate punishment and reparation for the events (see supra III A), the State understands it to be a reference to the sentence imposed to a member of the National Army by the Second Criminal Court of Brigade. In this regard, it responds that the Commission lacks competency to act as a court of fourth instance and that it is only competent to declare a petition admissible when it relates to a court ruling that was issued without due process or in violation of rights guaranteed in the Convention, and not when it merely states that the ruling is unjust or wrong in itself. The State argues that this sentence imposed to a member of the National Army can not be disqualified as a judicial act by bodies of the Inter-American Human Rights System. 27. The State notes that a disciplinary investigation on the facts of the petition before the Office of the Attorney General under file number 008-20363, 1998, in which the preliminary inquiry was launched on September 4, 1995 and was closed due to statute of limitation on September 27, 2000. 28. It also indicates that a direct reparation process is before the Contentious Administrative Tribunal of Santander for the alleged arrest and subsequent death of Wilfredo Quiñonez and Jose Gregorio Romero, which is on its evidentiary period. It indicates that the Directorate of Human Rights and the DIH have requested to the Office of the Attorney General to study the possibility of forming a special agency in this process. 29. Furthermore, the State argues that the petition was not filed within a reasonable period and argues that the facts alleged in the petition date back to 1995 and were heard by Military Criminal Justice that same year. It argues that the petition was filed 10 years after Military Criminal Justice took the case, which is not a reasonable time 12 . The State argues that reasonable time should also address the circumstances of the particular case and the date on which the violation occurred, according to Article 32.2 of the Rules of the Commission. It notes that the petition for the death of Wilfredo Quiñonez could have been filed at the time that the military courts began to hear the case if 12 To support its argument the State cites two reports in which the IACHR declares the inadmissibility of the petition in light that the time period was not reasonable: IACHR Report No. 20/02, Inadmissibility, petition 11.627, Santos Hernan Galeas Gonzalez, Honduras, February 27, 2002, paragraph 28, and Report No. 85/05, petition 430/00, Inadmissibility Romeel Eduardo Diaz Luna, Peru, October 24, 2005, paragraph 27. Note GOI/33.888/1872 of Colombia’s Ministry of Foreign Relations dated August 9, 2006.