6 was called solely as a witness in the course of the preliminary investigation on two opportunities. They asserted that he was subsequently implicated in the criminal case but a preventive detention order against him was quashed and, thus far, the case has not moved forward. 26. Lastly, the petitioners also contended that another violation committed in this case was the failure to protect the family members of the victims and witnesses Juan Carlos Gallego Hernández and Andrés Antonio Gallego Quintero, who after filing complaints and providing statements linking agents of the State to some of the crimes related to the instant case, were eventually arrested and have gone missing. B. Position of the State 27. With regard to admissibility of the case, the State argued that domestic remedies have not been exhausted because the family members of the alleged victims failed to pursue the remedy of habeas corpus4 as soon as they became aware of the disappearances. It claimed that both the Commission and the Court have mentioned in their legal precedents that in cases of disappearances, the adequate and effective remedy is habeas corpus and, as such, the duty to exhaust said remedy cannot be exhausted by resorting to other remedies, even though these may be of a judicial nature. The State alleged that the argument put forward by the petitioners that the authorities hearing the criminal proceedings should have opened habeas corpus proceedings ex officio or told the family members about their obligation to file for the habeas corpus remedy, is invalid, because this remedy is regulated in the Constitution and the law, and has been disseminated. 28. The State further contended that the exception to the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies is not applicable, inasmuch as the criminal proceeding has not gone on for an unreasonable period of time. It claimed that examination of this issue must be conducted during the merits stage and that “the mere passage of time without criminal convictions being handed down does not make it possible to come to the conclusion of an unreasonable period of time.” In this regard, it argued that the Commission must examine the period of time in light of the legal precedents of the Commission and the Court. With regard to the activity of the judicial authorities, the State contended that the investigations were conducted diligently and that evidence-gathering has been conducted with urgency and proactively; it argued that the petitioners did not file for any special constitutional relief (tutela) or motions to move the proceedings forward (memoriales de impulso). The State also claimed that five of the alleged victims did not resort to the contentious administrative procedure and, consequently, they did not exhaust domestic remedies in the area of reparation. 29. The State also addressed the failure to identify by name three of the alleged victims and moved that these individuals be left out of the deliberations. With regard to the situation of the nextof-kin of the alleged victims raised by the petitioners, the State argued that many of them were not parties either to the domestic proceedings or to the Inter-American proceedings at the beginning. Consequently, it claimed that they are disqualified from being regarded as alleged victims, particularly when these individuals are unable to prove that they are truly family members of the victims. 30. The State argued that the facts of the case do not tend to establish violations of the Convention and that, in its view, examination on colorable claims encompasses not only potential 4 The State clarified that this remedy is provided for in the Constitution and must be decided within 36 hours.