should guide any investigation where there are allegations of criminal conduct. In addition, they allege that the State deprived the victim of access to a remedy adequate to investigate the persons responsible for these violations, since the state agent accused of torture was tried before the military criminal courts rather than the regular courts. 14. In view of these factual allegations, the petitioner considers that the State has violated the victim’s right to humane treatment, right to a fair trial, and right to judicial protection, as well as the general obligation to respect and ensure the rights protected by the American Convention, enshrined in Articles 5, 8, 25, and 1(1) of the same treaty. As regards the admissibility of the claim, the petitioners allege that it meets the requirements established in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention. B. The State’s position 15. The State alleges that Wilson Gutiérrez Soler´s claim alleging he was tortured was examined by the domestic courts, which, in its view, met the obligation of administering justice under Colombian law.3 In this regard, it considers that the Commission should refrain from reviewing an issue already decided by the domestic courts as though it were a court of last resort, or court of fourth instance, and accordingly that the claim should be considered inadmissible. 16. In the course of the hearing held by the Commission during its 110th regular session, the State indicated that considering that domestic remedies were exhausted by the decision of June 10, 1999, the petitioners failed to meet the requirement of submission within six months of the final decision, provided for at Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention, and that, accordingly, the petition had not been submitted in timely fashion. In its observations of September 17, 2001, the State alleged that in any event the IACHR should “out of equity to the parties..., forward the complaints in timely fashion, or at least inform them that the complaint was submitted in timely fashion by the petitioners.”4 IV. ANALYSIS OF COMPETENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence 17. The petitioners are authorized by Article 44 of the American Convention to lodge complaints with the Commission. The petition states as the alleged victim an individual with respect to whom Colombia undertook to respect and guarantee the rights enshrined in the American Convention. As regards the State, the Commission notes that Colombia has been a state party to the American Convention since July 31, 1973, the date it deposited the respective instrument of ratification. Accordingly, the Commission is competent ratione personae to examine the petition. 18. The Commission is competent ratione loci to hear the petition insofar as it alleges violations of rights protected in the American Convention in the territory of a state party to that treaty. The IACHR is competent ratione temporis insofar as the obligation to respect and ensure the rights protected in the Convention had already entered into force for the State on the date on which the facts stated in the petition are alleged to have occurred. Finally, the Commission is competent ratione materiae because the petition alleges violations of human rights protected by the American Convention. B. Admissibility Requirements 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 3 Note EE 2303 from General Office for Special Matters of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Colombia, October 13, 2000. 4 Note EE 34106 of the General Office for Special Matters of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Colombia, September 17, 2001. 3