18. With respect to fulfillment of the admissibility requirements set forth in the American Convention, regarding exhaustion of the remedies under domestic law, the petitioners say that, By awarding the military criminal courts competence to take cognizance of serious human rights violations, the Superior Council of the Judicature places us in the position described in Article 46(2)(b) of the Convention [..] regarding prevention of the injured party to have access to and exhaust the remedies under domestic law [..]9 In other words, the petitioners have argued that the exception to the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies provided in the Treaty is applicable. The petitioners further assert that military criminal justice has not constituted an effective remedy in the investigation, prosecution and punishment of the alleged culprits.10 19. As to the arguments of the State concerning failure to meet the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies (see infra), the petitioners again invoked the exception provided in Article 46(2)(b) of the American Convention.11 In that regard they mentioned that the Constitutional Court of Colombia itself has prescribed the limits of competence of the military courts and has found that said courts are a special judicial recourse that may not be used in cases concerning serious offences, such as crimes against humanity. The petitioners claim that in the instant case the decision of the Superior Council of the Judicature to settle the conflict of jurisdiction advanced by the military courts in favor of the latter is in breach of the standards set by the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court. They are of the opinion that, The military courts prove an inadequate recourse, that is, they lack the requisite suitability to uphold in a judicial proceeding the rights [..] of the victims and to grant them or their families the necessary protection and just reparation.12 Therefore, they consider that in the instant case they are exempt from the requirement to exhaust the remedies under domestic law prior to resorting to the regional system of protection provided in the American Convention. B. The State 20. The State holds that the complaint presented by the petitioners does not meet the requirements set forth in Article 46(1) of the American Convention, inasmuch as “the remedies under Colombian law designed to ensure that justice is done in the instant case are still in progress.”13 21. The State has presented information to the effect that the Specialized Circuit Criminal Courts of Bogotá are currently conducting public prosecution proceedings against Carlos Castaño Gil and Luis Hernando Méndez Bedoya for the alleged crimes of aggravated homicide, aggravated abduction, terrorism, and conspiracy; Julio Enrique Flórez González, charged with carrying out the crimes of aggravated homicide, aggravated abduction, terrorism and conspiracy; Sergeant, Second Class Juan Carlos Gamarra Polo, charged with conspiracy and participation in the crimes of aggravated homicide, aggravated abduction and terrorism; Sergeant José Miller Ureña, charged with being an accessory during the fact to the crimes of conspiracy, aggravated homicide, aggravated abduction, and terrorism; José Vicente Giraldo, charged with conspiracy; Juan Manuel Ortíz Matamoros, charged with falsification of a private document and participation in conspiracy; Helio Ernesto Buitrago León, charged with participation in conspiracy; and Jorge Luis Almeira Quiróz, charged with falsification of a public document. The State also said that the Specialized Circuit Criminal Courts of Villavicencio charged Lieutenant Colonel Lino Hernando Sánchez Prado. According to the information furnished by the State, all the forenamed are allegedly detained, with the exception of Juan 9 Ibidem. 10 Ibidem. 11 Communication of the petitioners of July 17, 2000. 12 Ibidem. 13 Note EE/1138 of the Office of the Director General of Special Affairs of June 9, 2000. 4