their loved one and that they did not have access to an adequate remedy to reclaim their right to truth, justice and reparation; thus they have suffered a violation to their right to personal integrity. In this regard, the petitioners consider that the State violated Article 5 of the American Convention in conjunction with Article 1.1 to the detriment of the family of Wilfredo Quiñonez Barcenas. 18. As to the admissibility of the complaint before the IACHR, the petitioners claim that there is evidence on the involvement of army personnel in the events, which sets the responsibility for actions of State agents, and characterizes their claims as violations to human rights protected under the Convention 6. As to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies provided for in Article 46 of the American Convention, they argue that the exemption provided in the same Article applies, given the absence of due legal process to investigate, prosecute and punish those responsible and to repair the damage inflicted. Also they argue that the exception to the above exhaustion rule applies due to the inability of the victim’s relatives to exhaust adequate resources to repair the damage. They state that the military justice system lacks independence and impartiality to establish the truth of the events, to appropriately punish those responsible and to repair the material damage caused. 19. Faced with the allegation of the State as to whether the petition was not filed within a reasonable time (see infra III B), the petitioners responded that it must be taken into account that: (1) criminal proceedings in this case has been under military criminal jurisdiction, (2) the partie civile has requested, by all means the change of venue, without success, and (3) the petition was filed in 2006 when the case was pending before Military Criminal Justice. In this regard, they argue that the Commission has examined cases in which it considered that the deadline to file the petition was reasonable given the obstacles in the criminal investigation of cases that remain unpunished7. The petitioners argue that in this case the alleged human 6 They indicate that in addition to the evidence introduced before the IACHR, which the State objects with the opinion of the Military Criminal Judge, are the claims filed by María Rosalba Barcenas, her explanatory and ratification statement, the explanatory and ratification statement of Eneth Romero Ávila and operations report number 1709 GH-CTI, among others. Observations Writ of the petitioners dated June 7, 2007, page 3. 7 In support of their argument, the petitioners cite IACHR’s Report No. 14/06 (Raquel Natalia Lagunas and Sergio Antonio Sorbellini) in which it was considered that a petition filed seventeen years after the death of the alleged victims had been introduced within a reasonable period in light of the obstacles to the clarification of the facts. Observations Writ of the petitioners dated June 7, 2007, pages 5 and 6.