rights violations are continuing in relation to judicial protection and legal guarantees, thus it is not pertinent to consider that the petition was not filed within a reasonable time8. B. Position of the State 20. In response to the claim of the petitioners, the State sought a declaration of inadmissibility. First it claims that it has not been filed within a reasonable time, and that its filing exceeds the six-month period provided for in Article 46.1.b of the American Convention. The State argues that criminal proceedings had been resolved before Military Criminal Justice and believes that, should the petition be declared admissible, the Commission would be acting as the fourth international forum9. 21. On the facts, the State refers to the first instance ruling of the Second Court of Brigade. Specifically, it argues that on September 4, 1995, at about midnight, intelligence information was received on Aguabarranca’s military base, located in the city of Barrancabermeja, according to which a group of people were robbing and extorting the occupants of vehicles traveling on the road that leads from Barrancabermeja to "Llanito”. 22. They note that in response a patrol went through the internal “Fertilizantes” road, while the second went around the elevated bridge all the way to La Paz neighborhood. They claim that the troops detected the presence of an individual who was riding a bicycle, who upon seeing the Army two vehicles abandoned the bike and fled towards “Fertilizantes” road. It points out that faced with this, the patrollers gave ordered him to stop several times, but Mr. Quiñonez did not obey, so shot several shots into the air to intimidate him. They point out that he did not stop and took a shot against the military, so the troops reacted and killed him. 23. The State argues that the witness Angel María Noriega – whom the petitioners refer to in order to explain the circumstances in which Wilfredo Quiñonez died - never identified Wilfredo Quiñonez, José 8 The petitioners add that the State alleges fraud to demonstrate a supposed inadmissibility of the petition, since it argues that the lack of competency of military jurisdiction might be considered – without having done anything for over 10 years to correct it. Observations Writ of the petitioners dated June 7, 2007, page 7. 9 Note GOI/33.888/1872 of Colombia’s Ministry of Foreign Relations dated August 9, 2006 and Note GOI/39754/2112 of Colombia’s Ministry of Foreign Relations dated August 10, 2007, pages 7-10.