9 statement will be submitted to judicial assessment and, therefore, “if the judge finds that he has not told the whole truth, he may not continue to receive the benefits of justice and peace.” The State also argued that the family members of the victims became a civil third party to the case and have been able to request evidence and challenge rulings. 42. The State also addressed the alleged victims’ family members’ right to reparation. It asserted that suits were brought independently by each family group for direct reparation before the Administrative Court of Antioquia and were processed with due process of the law. It stressed that the petitioners did not appeal the judgment of June 15, 2010, which consolidated the proceedings and granted reparation. Accordingly, the State requested the IACHR to refrain from ordering further reparation. IV. ANALYSIS OF COMPETENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence of the Commission ratione personae, ratione loci, ratione temporis, and ratione materiae 43. The petitioners are entitled, under Article 44 of the American Convention, to file complaints with the Commission. The alleged victims are also natural persons, who were under the jurisdiction of the Colombian State when the facts alleged in petition are said to have occurred. Accordingly, the Commission is competent ratione personae to examine the petition. The Commission is competent ratione loci to entertain the petition, inasmuch as it alleges violations of the American Convention that are said to have taken place within the territory of a state party to said instrument. Likewise, the IACHR has ratione materiae jurisdiction because the petition alleges violations of the American Convention. The Commission is also competent ratione temporis being that Colombia ratified the American Convention on May 28, 1973 and, therefore, the obligation to respect and ensure the rights enshrined in the American Convention were already in force on the State when the facts alleged in the petition are said to have occurred. 44. Lastly, the IACHR is competent to rule on the basis of the Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons (IACFDP), which the State is a party since April 12, 2005. In accordance with Article XII of the IACFDP, the Commission is materially competent to decide on alleged violations of this treaty. Furthermore, in keeping with the legal precedents of the Inter-American system, the effects of an alleged forced disappearance and the obligation to investigate such an offense is of an ongoing nature. As such, and in light of the fact that the petitioners allege that the State has still not determined the whereabouts of the alleged victims, the IACHR has time-based jurisdiction to examine the potential breach of the obligations set forth in the IACFDP. B. Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies 45. Article 46.1.a) of the American Convention provides that in order for a petition lodged before the Inter-American Commission to be admissible in accordance with Article 44 of the same instrument, the requirement that remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted must be met in keeping with generally recognized principles of international law. This requirement is designed to enable national authorities to hear cases on an alleged violation of a protected right and, when appropriate, settle it before it is heard by an international body.