20. On February 18, 1992 the case was referred to the Public Order Office of Cali, and on April 12, 1996 the Regional Court of Cali ordered that the investigation be continued, in keeping with the judgment of the Superior Court. On July 28, 1996, the investigation was assumed by the National Human Rights Unit of the Office of the Attorney General. On September 12, 1997 the National Human Rights Unit issued an indictment of Maj. Oscar de Jesús Echandía Sánchez as the person allegedly responsible for the crimes of aggravated homicide for terrorist purposes, and attempted aggravated homicide, to the detriment of the victims. Nonetheless, on February 18, 1998, the Office of the Regional Prosecutor precluded the investigation. On November 30, 1997, the Office of the Regional Prosecutor-Delegate before the Supreme Court of Justice, issued a restraining order against Congressman Tiberio Villarreal Ramos, who was said to be one of the planners of the massacre. 21. According to the information provided by the State, on January 7, 1999 the then-Terrorism Unit of the Office of the Regional Prosecutor of Bogotá issued an indictment against Messrs. Nelson Lesmes Leguizamón and Marcelino Panesso Ocampo, as alleged planners of the homicide of 13 of the victims, and of the attempted homicide of the three surviving victims. On October 15, 1999 the Prosecutorial Unit before the Superior Court of the Judicial District of Bogotá affirmed the indictment of Nelson Lesmes Leguizamón, who later died. On February 1, 2000 the investigation was referred to the Specialized Criminal Circuit Courts of Bucaramanga to initiate the trial stage against Marcelino Panesso. On December 28, 2000 the Office of the Attorney General ordered that the investigation into the rest of the accused be heard by a specialized prosecutor from the National Technical Investigation Unit (CTI).11 22. As regards the dynamics of the process, the State alleges that in the first stages, justice was administered in a prompt and lawful fashion. It indicates that the investigation is ongoing thanks to the elements incorporated from the statements by Alonso de Jesús Baquero Agudelo, alias Vladimir, and that therefore the reasonableness of the time transpired must be weighed vis-à-vis the appearance of new evidence that allowed the investigation to continue. At the same time, the State suggests that considering that the statement given by Baquero Agudelo was compensated for by procedural benefits related to the serving of his sentence (see supra, paragraph 18), his assertions are questionable. It alleges that this factor has prolonged the effective conclusion of the proceeding. It highlights that the investigation in question involves dismantling a criminal organization of the self-defense groups and the difficulties this entails. In addition, it points out that the activity by the civil party to the proceeding has been limited, and that this factor has not helped clarify the matter. 23. As regards the activity of the disciplinary jurisdiction, the State indicates that on February 6, 1991 the Office of the Procurator Delegate for the Military Forces initiated a formal investigation and laid charges against Maj. Oscar Robayo Valencia, Lt. Luis Enrique Andrade Ortiz, and Sgt. Otoniel Hernández Arciniegas. Nonetheless, on June 7, 1994, a prescription of the disciplinary action was declared. In addition, the State indicated that the next-of-kin of several of the victims had brought proceedings before the contentious-administrative jurisdiction, that the State had been ordered to pay compensation, and that it had been duly paid.12 24. The State concludes in its communication of March 5, 2001 that for these reasons, it should be considered that the petition does not satisfy the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies provided for in Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention. In addition, it considers that the procedural history of the case justifies extending the time of the investigation. IV. ANALYSIS OF COMPETENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence 11Id. 12 Information provided by the State in the hearing held during the 112th session. 5