11. The petitioners report that on April 16, 1998, Colonel Germán Galvis, Chief of Staff of Mobile Brigade No. 1, submitted a report in which he indicated the following: that on December 28, 1997, Soldier Oscar Iván Tabares Toro launched a grenade that detonated in the tent in which Lieutenant Iván Ramiro Rodríguez Piza and Corporal Ernesto Rodríguez Rojas were sleeping, after which he fled; that the occupants of the tent were wounded; that criminal and disciplinary investigations into the event were opened against Soldier Oscar Iván Tabares; that they had gathered testimony regarding the addiction of Oscar Iván Tabares Toro to narcotic substances and his membership in the Medellín militia, which had murdered him. They add that on August 5, 1999, Mobile Brigade No. 1 notified the mother of the alleged victim of the judgment of “Cacique Sugamuxi” Counter-Guerrilla Battalion Command No. 20, dated October 22, 1998, convicting Oscar Iván Tabares Toro for the crime of aggravated homicide. 12. They allege that, in order to collect more information on the whereabouts of her son, Mrs. Toro went to San Juanito, where she managed to speak with some peasants in the area who told her that they had found the remains of a military tent with what appeared to be blood stains at the site where the Army was camped at the time of the disappearance of her son. The petitioners allege that this evidence was delivered to the Fiscalía General de la Nación [National Office of the Public Prosecutor], and that on May 1, 2000, they were informed that the results of the test to determine whether they were blood stains were negative. 13. Based on the above-mentioned facts, the petitioners allege that the State violated the rights to juridical personality, life, humane treatment, and personal liberty enshrined in the American Convention, to the detriment of Oscar Iván Tabares Toro. They further allege that the State violated the rights to a fair trial and to judicial protection, considered in conjunction with the general obligation to respect and guarantee the rights protected by the Convention, to the detriment of the alleged victim and his next of kin, since the authorities have not conducted an effective and a full investigation into the disappearance of Oscar Tabares Toro. 14. As regards the admissibility of the petition, the petitioners allege that the exception to the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies stipulated in Article 46(2)(c) of the Convention applies to this case, in view of the unwarranted delay in resolving the case. They point out that the criminal investigation has been in the preliminary stage since it was opened in January 1998. They believe that this situation amounts to a denial of justice, due to the unwarranted delay, which is a manifestation of the ineffectiveness of the criminal investigation and calls for application of the exception to the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies stipulated in Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention. Position of the State 15. The State is of the opinion that the petitioners’ complaint is inadmissible due to application of the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies set forth in Article 46(1) of the American Convention. On this point, it indicates that domestic proceedings to clarify the events that led to the alleged forced disappearance of Mr. Tabares Toro and the possible responsibility of State agents are pending resolution. 16. More specifically, the State points out that the National Human Rights Unit of the Fiscalía General de la Nación is conducting a criminal investigation, assigned No. 463, which is in the preliminary investigation stage. The State alleges that to assess the reasonability of the period of time referred to in Article 46(2) of the American Convention, it is necessary to consider various external factors that have influenced this case, such as the complexity of the events, the actors involved,