69. In the instant case, the petitioners have claimed that although domestic remedies have not been exhausted, an exception is applicable, since after having initiated a military criminal proceeding, a disciplinary proceeding, an administrative-contentious conciliatory proceeding, and one before the Office of the Attorney General, these remedies have been prolonged unjustifiably, which has rendered them absolutely ineffective and inadequate to rectify the infringed legal situation. They claim that this has meant that, to date, the State has not fulfilled its duty to investigate, prosecute, and punish those responsible, and therefore has failed to uphold the rights alleged to have been violated, which merits an exception to the exhaustion of domestic remedies stipulated by the Convention in Article 46.2(c). 70. For its part, the State “considers that the remedies have been effectively exhausted by the petitioner”13 and that they “were adequate and effective.”14 71. The Inter-American Commission observes in a preliminary manner that, as of the date of approval of this report, over 11 years had transpired since the physical attack on Mr. Luis Gonzalo Vélez Restrepo on August 29, 1996, and those responsible for the incident have not been investigated, prosecuted, and punished under the law. Moreover, more than 10 years have elapsed since the lodging of the complaint before the Office of the Attorney General for the alleged threats and harassment against Mr. Vélez Restrepo and his family, without any serious and effective investigation having been opened or charges brought against any suspect to date. This is also the case with the complaint before that same judicial organ in relation to the attempted “forced disappearance” of Mr. Vélez Restrepo, which would have been prosecuted as a kidnapping offense.15 72. The Commission has taken note of the different procedures which have been initiated in the instant case, which are: a) a military criminal proceeding for attacks against peasants and against Mr. Vélez Restrepo in Caquetá in 1996; b) a disciplinary proceeding before the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Nation for the physical attacks against Mr. Vélez Restrepo in Caquetá in 1996; c) a disciplinary proceeding before the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Nation for threats and acts of harassment and intimidation against Mr. Vélez Restrepo and his family; d) a pretrial administrative conciliation proceeding before an AdministrativeContentious Court, pursuant to a request presented by the petitioners; and e) an ordinary criminal proceeding in the investigatory stage before the Office of the Attorney General of the Nation. 73. With regard to the investigations in the military criminal jurisdiction for the alleged assaults and injuries of August 29, 1996 in Caquetá, the file before the IACHR reflects that the petitioners, after several requests for information on the status of the investigations, received a response from Military Criminal Instruction Court 67 in 2006, after the petition had been lodged before the IACHR. In its response, the State informs the petitioners that on October 3, 1997, the military investigation was closed pursuant to an interlocutory judgment but that the State, “owing to circumstances beyond its control could not provide a copies of the decisions since the military facilities where the Court’s files were kept had been occupied by the FARC, as a result of which the file was lost and […] it has not been possible to reconstruct it.” 74. In this regard, the Commission’s view, as it has recognized previously,16 is that the military jurisdiction does not constitute an appropriate forum for determining the responsibility of state agents through their acts or omissions. Hence, this jurisdiction does not provide an adequate remedy to investigate, prosecute, and punish violations of the human rights enshrined in the 13 Section 2.3 , Para. 1, of the State’s observations to Petition No. 864-05, received by the IACHR on May 29, 2007. 14 Section 2.3 , Para. 1, of the State’s observations to Petition No. 864-05, received by the IACHR on May 29, 2007. 15 Letter from the Medellín Office of the Attorney General dated April 20, 1998, states that the “Unit of Crimes Against Liberty is pursuing an investigation for the crime of kidnapping, in which the complainant appears as Luis Gonzalo Vélez Osorio, in file 164.579 of January, 1998.” For the purposes of the instant case, the Commission deems it adequate to qualify the incident as an attempted kidnapping rather than an attempted forced disappearance. 16 IACHR, Admissibility Report No. 45/07. Case of the Chengue Massacre, Colombia, dated July 23, 2007, para 49; see IACHR Third Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Colombia (1999), p. 175; Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Colombia (1993), p. 246; Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Brazil (1997), pp. 40-42. See I/A Court H.R., Durand and Ugarte Case, Judgment of August 16, 2000, paragraph 117. 11