facts set forth by the petitioners do not tend to establish genocide, because they do not fit within the definition of that violation. 7. The State has also argued that the claim of the petitioners is inadmissible for failure to meet the technical requirements for the admissibility of a petition set forth in articles 46 and 47 of the Convention and article 32 of the Regulations of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (the "Regulations of the Commission"). The State has also argued that the case may not be admitted as presented, because the victims and facts do not demonstrate sufficient connection and have not been adequately individualized. In addition, the State has asserted that the Commission may not admit the case on the grounds that the Commission previously analyzed the facts subject of the petition in a general report relating to the human rights situation in Colombia. The State has finally argued that the petition is inadmissible for failure to meet the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies. II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION 8. Before a formal petition was received in this case, the Commission acted pursuant to article 29 of its Regulations, on October 23, 1992, to request the State of Colombia to implement precautionary measures for the protection of certain leaders of the Patriotic Union party. 9. On December 16, 1993, the petitioners filed a formal petition with the Commission in this case. The Commission opened case 11.227 on February 16, 1994 and sent the pertinent parts of the petition to the State of Colombia for its response. 10. On December 21, 1993, the Commission again acted to request the implementation of precautionary measures by the State of Colombia on behalf of the leadership of the Patriotic Union party. The State responded to the Commission's request for precautionary measures on February 2, 1994. 11. The petitioners submitted additional background information in the case on April 6, 1994. 12. The State delivered to the Commission its answer in the case on June 3, 1994. The petitioners provided their rejoinder on August 5, 1994. The response of the petitioners was sent to the State on August 18, 1994. 13. The State requested an extension of time to respond to the rejoinder of the petitioners on September 23, 1994. The Commission granted the extension on September 27, 1994. 14. The State sent to the Commission its response to the petitioners' rejoinder on November 28, 1994. The petitioners responded with their observations on January 6, 1995. 15. On March 17, 1995, the State requested an extension of time to respond to the petitioners' observations of January 6, 1995. The Commission granted the extension requested by letter of March 21, 1995. The State submitted its response to the petitioners' observations on April 5, 1995. On June 14, 1995, the petitioners submitted their observations in relation to the State response of April 5, 1995. 16. The petitioners sent additional information to the Commission on March 29, 1995. This information sought to address specific questions relating to the admissibility of petitions involving groups of victims. On May 2, 1995, the State sent a note to the Commission protesting the fact that information about the March 29 communication of the petitioners, which the State had not received, had been published in the press. The Commission forwarded the communication of the petitioners of March 29 to the State on May 15, 1995. The State responded to the petitioners' communication on July 21, 1995. 17. On December 10, 1996, the Commission received additional information in the case. The Commission forwarded that information to the State on December 19, 1996. 2