efforts made to restore normalcy and law and order and the progress made thus far, the process that the Comuna is undergoing is still a complicated one. 23. The State refutes the allegations of connivance between members of law enforcement and the paramilitary groups operating in Medellín. This allegation is the product of the efforts made by the Army and the Police to make Comuna 13 safe again. It also cites figures comparing crime in the city of Medellín before and after Operation Orion. 14 24. As for the detention of Mrs.Yarce, Mrs. Londoño and Mrs. Naranjo, the State alleges that these three people were turned over to the Public Prosecutor’s Office, for the alleged commission of the crime of sedition. It explains that the arrests and indictments were based on information provided by people living in the district; it went on to report that on May 22, 2003, the investigation was closed as there were no evidential grounds upon which to arrive at a decision on the charges brought against the three women. 25. The State argues that the petitioners’ complaint is inadmissible and that the State is fulfilling its obligations to investigate, prosecute, punish and to make full reparations through its system for the administration of justice. Specifically, it is alleging that the remedies under domestic law have not been pursued and exhausted and that the circumstances that would trigger the exceptions that the Convention allows to the prior exhaustion rule are not present. 26. In particular, it considers that the exception by virtue of an unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the domestic remedies does not apply based on the three criteria of the reasonableness of the time allowed, i.e., the complexity of the case, the procedural activity of the parties and the conduct of the judicial authorities.15 It contends that given the complexity of the situation, the time periods allowed for obtaining results must factor in the needs, circumstances and incidental proceedings that investigations involve. The State insists that the court authorities have diligently prosecuted the court cases, despite the difficulty encountered, and that more detailed information cannot be provided because these are still active cases protected by the rules against disclosing information during the pretrial phase.” 16 27. Concerning the death of Mrs. Yarce, the State alleges that an investigation was assigned to Prosecutor 37 attached to Medellín’s Unidad 2ª de Vida [inquiries into cause of death] 17 and then transferred to Medellín’s Office of the Special Prosecutor for Human Rights.18 As to the steps taken during the course of the investigation, the State reports that two persons alleged to have participated in the crime have been identified. It also confirms that the case is still in the preliminary phase. 28. The State asserts that the Office of the Prosecutor Delegated to Defend Human Rights conducted a disciplinary investigation into the allegedly arbitrary detention of Mrs. Yarce, Mrs. Londoño and Mrs. Naranjo and the threats purportedly made against them. 19 For jurisdictional reasons, the investigation was then referred to the Valle de Aburrá Office of the Provincial Prosecutor in the department of Antioquia.20 The State reports that by order of June 29, 2006, an Army Corporal Third Class was placed under investigation.21 IV. ANALYSIS ON COMPETENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence 14 Note from the Colombian State DDH. GOI No. 12442/0552 , March 15, 2007, p. 6. 15 Note from the Colombian State DDH. GOI No. 31279/1533, dated June 14, 2006, p. 5. Note from the Colombian State DDH. GOI No. 31279/1533 dated June 14, 2006, p. 9. 17 Investigation No 866181, as reported in the Note from the State DDH. GOI No. 31279/1533 dated June 14, 2006. 18 The investigation file number is 2169 and, as of July 3, 2006, the date on the IACHR received the State’s note, it was in the preliminary, with evidence being taken. 19 Case file No. 8-82157-2003. 20 File No. 136-5270-2004. As of June 14, 2006, the date on which the IACHR received the note from the State, the case was in the preliminary stage, and the evidence ordered during the preliminary inquiry was being taken. 21 Note from the Colombian State DDH. GOI No. 12442/0552 dated March 15, 2007, p. 9. 16 5