3 individual. They indicated that these events occurred in the course of two weeks in June and July 1996, and later in December 1996, specifically on i) June 21 (disappeareances of Aníbal de Jesús Castaño Gallego and the child Oscar Zuluaga Marulanda; ii) June 22 (disappeareances of Juan Crisóstomo Cardona Quintero, Miguel Ancízar Cardona Quintero, alias Fredy, his wife and an unidentified person); iii) June 26 (disappeareance of María Irene Gallego Quintero); iv) July 7 (disappeareances of Juan Carlos Gallego Hernández and Jaime Alonso Mejía Quintero; and death of Javier Giraldo Giraldo); v) July 9 (disappeareances of Jesús Castaño Castaño, the child Andrés Suárez Cordero, Octavio de Jesús Gallego Hernández and Orlando de Jesús Muñoz Castaño; and vi) December 27 (disappeareances of Andrés Gallego Castaño y Leonidas Cardona Giraldo). 11. According to the petitioners, these acts took place with the collaboration between different units and battalions of the Armed Forces and the paramilitary group the Self-Defense Forces of Magdalena Medio (Autodefensas del Magdalena Medio) due to the perception that the alleged victims were guerrillas or guerrilla collaborators. 12. In order to put these acts into context, they asserted that the State played a significant role in the emergence, creation, training and arming of this paramilitary group, and that the link between the State and the group has been corroborated by reports of the Office of the Attorney General and Armed Forces intelligence, statements provided by members of the military forces, paramilitary groups and the civilian population, as well as the Inter-American Court itself. 13. A detailed account of the facts and domestic proceedings will be provided in the Commission’s analysis of the facts, based on the information provided by both parties. In this section, the main arguments on admissibility and the law outlined by the petitioners are summarized. 14. As to admissibility of the case, the petitioners invoked the exception of unwarranted delay provided for in Article 46.2.c) of the American Convention, because even though the family members of the alleged victims immediately reported each incident to the municipal, prosecutorial and judicial authorities, criminal proceeding were brought only against two individuals allegedly responsible for the crimes: the leader of the Magdalena Medio Self-Defense Forces, Ramón Isaza, and Army Major Guzmán Lombana. They indicated that after 17 years since they reported the incidents, not a single person has been punished. 15. The petitioners contended that it is not acceptable to justify judicial delay with the argument of complexity of the case, inasmuch as the proceedings have been characterized by a lack of procedural and evidentiary momentum, as well as a lack of diligence in the investigation into the link of agents of the State to the paramilitary groups in the commission of the crimes. 16. The petitioners claimed that the other proceedings were not effective either. As to the investigation in the military criminal courts, they contended that on September 8, 1997, the case was archived when “it was established that the members of the military were uninvolved in the crimes charged.” They argued that the military criminal courts are not allowed to investigate cases of human rights violations. With regard to the disciplinary investigation, they asserted that on September 11, 2000, the Office of the Inspector General failed to open an investigation of public officials, lost evidence that linked the Armed Forces to the crimes and failed to conduct a serious investigation. As for the administrative proceeding, they contended that the two proceedings are pending final decisions. They also alleged that, in any case, exhaustion of disciplinary and administrative proceedings is not required in cases such as this one.