American Convention presumably committed by members of the Public Force, or with its collaboration or acquiescence. Moreover, the Inter-American Court has confirmed that military criminal justice can only constitute an adequate forum to judge military personnel for the commission of crimes or minor offenses which by their nature violate legal assets specific to the military order.17 75. At the same time, the Commission appreciates the State’s good intentions in imposing administrative sanctions on the sub-officials who participated in the incidents that occurred at the peasant demonstrations of August 1996, and the pre-trial administrative-contentious process as an attempt at conciliation. Nonetheless, the sole purpose of the disciplinary proceeding carried out in the administrative venue was to determine the individual responsibility of public servants in the discharge of their duties,18 without upholding the rights of the petitioners and their future reparation. Moreover, according to the information contributed by the petitioners and that the State did not debate, the conciliation process (administrative-contentious) ostensibly ended because the State failed to recognize its responsibility for the violation of the rights of the victims and the amount of money offered was not considered satisfactory by the petitioners. Because of the absence of a conciliation agreement and the decision of the petitioners, the process administrative-contentious was not continued. 76. Consequently, in light of events of the nature previously described which also were known to the authorities of the State, and in view of the limitations inherent to an administrative disciplinary proceeding —given the nature of the types of offenses investigated and the purposes of the organ responsible for it—the Commission does not consider that the administrative procedure formally pursued by the State constitutes an effective and sufficient remedy for the purposes of determining the inadmissibility of the instant petition.19 77. It is worth noting that to date no information is available on the outcomes of the complaints lodged by Mr. Vélez Restrepo before the Office of the Attorney General and it is not known whether there has been progress in any criminal investigation. It is likewise unknown whether any penalty has been imposed against those responsible for the alleged threats, harassment, and alleged attempted kidnapping of Mr. Vélez, which could lead to the conclusion that the domestic remedies were not effective or adequate, and have resulted in an unwarranted delay of over 10 years. 78. Finally, in its analysis of the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the IACHR must bear in mind the particular circumstance of the instant case, in which the alleged victims are living outside of Colombia in a situation of exile, due to the State’s presumed failure to protect their rights. 79. Invoking the exceptions to the rule on exhaustion of domestic remedies set forth in Article 46(2) of the Convention is closely linked to the determination of possible violations of certain rights enshrined therein, such as the guarantees of access to justice. Nonetheless, Article 46(2), by its nature and purpose, is a provision with autonomous content in relation to the substantive provisions of the Convention. Therefore, the determination as to whether the exceptions to the rule on exhaustion of domestic remedies are applicable to the case in question should be made prior to and separate from the analysis of the merits, since it depends on a standard of appreciation distinct from that used to determine whether there has been a violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. 80. Based on all of the foregoing, and in accordance with the terms of Article 46(2)(c) of the Convention, Article 31 of the Rules of Procedures, and the review of the file, the Commission concludes that the exception is applicable for the unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under domestic remedies. 17 I/A Court H.R., Durand and Ugarte Case. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series C No. 68, paragraph 117. See also Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 131; and Case of Palamara Iribarne. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, para. 124. 18 IACHR, Admissibility Report No. 54/07. Case of Wilmer Antonio Gonzáles Rojas, Nicaragua, of July 24, 2007, para 57. 19 Idem, para. 58. 12