the petitioners felt that it was not an adequate and effective recourse to investigate the facts. 30. The State argues that on May 3, 2005, the Second Specialized Criminal Court of the Circuit ruled not to propose the positive conflict of competency. It considers that the period of six months for filing the petition pursuant to Article 46 of the Convention should be computed from that decision. The State argues that the petition was filed on April 12, 2006, ten months and eight days later, which exceeded the time limit under Article 46.1.b of the American Convention and 32.1 of the Rules of the Commission. 31. In response to the comments of the petitioners regarding the reasonableness of the period (see supra III A) the State alleges that in the example used by them as support of their argument 13 the Commission decided that - although the petition was filed more than ten years after the events - the term was reasonable, given that judicial and police authorities obstructed the truth in order to cover up the facts. The State contends that these obstructions and concealment by the courts were not present in the case under analysis. Therefore, the State considers that in this case the exemption provided for in Article 46.2.a of the Convention does not apply and that the petition is inadmissible because it was not filed within a reasonable time. IV. ANALYSIS ON COMPETENCY AND ADMISSIBILITY A. Competency 32. The petitioners are entitled, in principle, by Article 44 of the American Convention to file petitions before the Commission. The petition states as alleged individual victims, in connection to whom the Colombian State was responsible to respect and guarantee the rights enshrined in the American Convention. With regard to the State, the Commission notes that Colombia is a Member State of the American Convention since July 31, 1973 date on which they deposited their ratification instruments, respectively. Therefore, the Commission has ratione personae competency to review the petition. Also, the Commission has ratione loci competency to hear the petition, as it claims violations of rights protected under the American Convention that allegedly took place within the territory of Colombia, Member State in said treaty. 13 IACHR, Report No. 14/06, Petition 617-01, Lagunas and Sorbellini , Argentina. IACHR’s Annual Report 2006. Note GOI/39754/2112 of Colombia’s Ministry of Foreign Relations dated August 10, 2007, pages 2 and 3.