proceedings instituted to clear up the facts. In its communication of November 13, 2002, it notes that the criminal investigation is before the military jurisdiction by decision of the Superior Council of the Judiciary, and that Court 21 of Military Criminal Investigation issued an arrest warrant against three members of the FAC to be held in pre-trial detention, with the benefit of release on bail. They indicate that this measure was affirmed by the Superior Military Tribunal on April 29, 2002. 13. With respect to the disciplinary proceeding, the State argues that the Human Rights division of the General Attorney’s Office (Procuraduría Delegada para la Defensa de Derechos Humanos) opened a preliminary inquiry, and that on October 27, 2000, charges were filed against Lt. César Romero Padilla, Second-Lt. Johan Jiménez Valencia and flight technician Héctor Mario Fernández, of the FAC (crew of the helicopter) and against Army Major Juan Manuel González González, as Commander of Counter-guerrilla Battalion No. 36 (“Comuneros”). A decision is still pending in this proceeding. In addition, the State reports that the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal of Arauca currently has 22 proceedings pending in relation to these events, awaiting conciliation. 14. The Colombian State alleged in its written communication that the petitioners had not specifically identified the alleged victims of the attack on the hamlet of Santo Domingo, in particular the wounded and requested that the pertinent clarifications be made. During the course of the hearing held February 25, 2003, the respective information was provided. 15. In addition, the State calls into question the validity and relevance of the judgment of the Opinion Tribunal, which is attached by petitioners. It considers that the work of that Tribunal leads to what it defines as the de-institutionalizing of Colombian justice, and that it ignores the investigations being carried out within its jurisdiction. IV. ANALYSIS OF COMPETENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence 16. The petitioners are authorized, in principle, by Article 44 of the American Convention to submit complaints to the IACHR. The alleged victims are individuals in respect of whom the Colombian State undertook to respect and ensure the rights enshrined in the American Convention. As regards the State, the Commission notes that Colombia has been a State Party to the American Convention since July 31, 1973, when it deposited its instrument of ratification. Therefore, the Commission is competent ratione personae to examine the petition. 17. The Commission is competent ratione loci to take cognizance of the petition, insofar as it alleges violations of rights protected in the American Convention that are said to have taken place in the territory of a State Party to that treaty. The IACHR is competentratione temporis insofar as the obligation to respect and ensure the rights protected in the American Convention had already entered into force for the State as of the date that the facts alleged in the petition are said to have occurred. Finally, the Commission is competent ratione materiae, because the petition alleges violations of human rights protected by the American Convention. B. Admissibility Requirements 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies and time period for lodging a petition 18. The State alleges that the judicial clarification of the facts that are the subject matter of this case is pending, and that therefore the claim is inadmissible for failure to comply with the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies provided for at Article 46(1) of the American Convention. The petitioner alleges that the investigation is pending before the military criminal courts, and that the military jurisdiction does not offer an independent and impartial remedy for clarifying the violations alleged, excusing petitioner from having to exhaust it before recurring to the inter-American system. 3