culminated in an acquittal of the accused by the Single Criminal Court of the Specialized Circuit of Neiva, Huila, on December 15, 2000. That verdict was later affirmed on final appeal by the Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court for the Judicial District of Neiva, Huila, on April 6, 2001. 17. The petitioner argues that in that proceeding the competent authorities committed a series of irregularities, in both the investigation before the Public Ministry and the phase of obtaining and weighing the evidence, before the Judiciary. 18. The complainant states that said judicial proceedings “did not lead to the identification of persons who might have been responsible, concluding in a judgment of acquittal, constituting a denial of justice.” It further argues that in the judicial proceeding to clarify the murder “there was no due process of law.” This assertion is supported by its argument, as it notes (1) that in Colombia there was a pattern of impunity in human rights violation in the cases of journalists who have been killed, (2) that the identity of the witnesses was not adequately protected, and, (3) that the attorneys in the region had been intimidated in relation to the case. It also notes that the prosecutor on the case was changed as many as four times. 19. The petitioner asserts that after the acquittal the crime remains in impunity, for the Colombian State has not made any effort to open a new investigation to clarify the facts in the murder. The petitioner places special emphasis on the flaws of the investigation and the fact that to date the investigation has gone nowhere. It concludes that the State will not open a new investigation, since it has said that it has already discharged its obligation to impart justice. 20. The petitioner argues that according to the case-law of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights, the obligation to guarantee access to domestic remedies in keeping with the generally recognized principles of international law implies that such remedies must be adequate and effective, which was not so in this case, and which opens the door to the application of the exceptions provided for in Article 46(2) of the Convention. The complainant has indicated that the exceptions to the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies include an exception to the rule by which the petition must be filed within six months. Accordingly, the six-month limit provided for in Article 46(1)(b) is not applicable to the instant case. B. The State’s position 5