has not made a final decision on the case of Ángel Alberto Duque, one cannot consider that domestic remedies have been exhausted. 23. In terms of the petitioners’ argument regarding the lack of an adequate and effective remedy in the domestic jurisdiction, the State argues that with the case-law of Judgment C336 of 2008, which recognizes the right to the survivor’s pension for same-sex couples, and Judgment T-1241 of 2008, which provides for the possibility of retroactive recognition of the de facto marital union constituted by same-sex couples for the purpose of claiming the survivor’s pension so long as one makes a showing that one was indeed a permanent partner in such a union, the legal situation is such as to enable Ángel Alberto Duque to claim the survivor’s pension. 24. As for the petitioners’ argument that Ángel Alberto Duque “will never be able to meet (some requirements) because his partner has died” and that therefore the precedent cited does not apply, the State alleges that as of Judgment T-1241 of 2008, that status can be shown by the “mere informal expression of one of the members of the presumed couple,” and that moreover, in such events one takes into account other means of proof such as the out-ofcourt statement of one who seeks such status and two additional witnesses. 25. Finally, the State argues that the petition was filed after the six-month time frame established in the American Convention for filing a petition with the Commission. Specifically, it notes that the decision on appeal handed down by the Twelfth Civil Circuit Court of Bogotá that denied the motion of appeal filed by the alleged victim was dated July 18, 2002, and the petition was filed with the Commission on March 8, 2005. As for the review by the Constitutional Court, the State indicates that the record in the tutela was filed there on August 26, 2002, and that review was barred by order of September 19, 2003. In this respect, the State argues that as provided by Decree 2591 of 1991, the review cannot be considered an additional remedy, but an act within the powers of the Constitutional Court, which “without express motivation and based on its judgment” determines which tutela judgments will be reviewed. IV. ANALYSIS OF COMPETENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence 26. The petitioners are authorized, in principle, by Article 44 of the American Convention to file petitions with the Commission. The petition notes as the alleged victim an individual person with respect to whom the Colombian State undertook to respect and ensure 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 on which it deposited its instrument of ratification; therefore, the Commission is competent ratione personae to examine the petition. 27. In addition, the Commission is competent ratione loci to take cognizance of the petition, insofar as it alleges violations of rights protected in the American Convention in the territory of Colombia, a state party to that treaty. The Commission is competent ratione temporis insofar as the obligation to respect and ensure the rights protected in the American Convention were already in force for the State on the date the facts alleged in the petition are said to have taken place. Finally, the Commission is competent ratione materiae, because the petition alleges possible violations of human rights protected by the American Convention. B. Admissibility requirements 5