A. Jurisdiction 16. The Commission has prima facie jurisdiction to examine the petition in question. The facts alleged in the petition took place when the obligation to respect and ensure the rights established in the Convention had already entered into force for the Colombian State. 6 17. In terms of the alleged violation of the provisions of the American Declaration, it should be noted that from the entry into force of the American Convention for Colombia on July 18, 1978, the Convention, and not the Declaration, became the applicable source of law, 7 so long as the petition refers to an alleged violation of rights that are substantially identical in both instruments, and does not involve a continuing violation. 8 In this case, the rights allegedly violated by the Colombian State under the Declaration are similarly protected under the Convention, and the facts that gave rise to the petitioners' claim took place in 1987, i.e., after the American Convention had entered into force for Colombia. Therefore, the Commission shall only refer to the alleged violations of the Convention, not of the Declaration. The Commission proceeds, then, to analyze whether the requirements established in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention have been satisfied in the instant case. B. Admissibility requirements a. Exhaustion of domestic remedies and time requirement for filing the petition 18. The Commission notes that the State has not expressly raised an objection on grounds of failure to exhaust domestic remedies, even though it provided information on the status of domestic proceedings. Petitioners, for their part, have alleged that the investigation that the State should have undertaken on its own initiative for the purpose of clarifying the disappearances, and to try and punish the persons responsible, has been prolonged for an unreasonable time, has not been effective, and has generated impunity. They request, therefore, that the case be declared admissible under Article 46(2) of the American Convention, which provides that the prior exhaustion requirement and the six-month rule on filing of petitions do not apply when: a. the domestic legislation of the state concerned does not afford due process of law for the protection of the right or rights that have allegedly been violated; b. the party alleging violation of his rights has been denied access to the remedies under domestic law or has been prevented from exhausting them; or c. there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. 19. The Commission considers that in this case the question of exhaustion of domestic remedies is closely linked to the allegations of fact and law regarding the alleged failure of the duty to provide access to justice and judicial protection pursuant to Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. In this respect, one should recall that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has noted that: 6 Colombia ratified the American Convention on Human Rights on July 31, 1973. 7 In issuing its pronouncement on the legal value of the American Declaration, the Court affirmed that, in principle, for the States Parties to the Convention, the specific source of obligations in relation to the protection of human rights is the Convention itself. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Advisory Opinion OC-10/89, Interpretation of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man within the Framework of Article 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights, of July 14, 1989, para. 46. The Inter-American Commission has ruled in similar terms, see Report 38/99, Argentina, Annual Report of the IACHR 1998, para. 13. 8 The Commission has established that it has jurisdiction to examine violations of the Declaration and the Convention so long as it is a continuing violation of the rights protected in these instruments, such as that caused, for example, by a denial of justice that originates before the State in question has ratified the Convention and continues after the expression of consent and the entry into force of the Convention for that State. See, e.g., Res. 26/88, Case 10,190, Argentina, Annual Report of the IACHR 1987-1988. 4