Procurator General (Procuraduría General de la Nación) includes testimony of the presence of the National Army in the area of El Aro and its collaboration with the paramilitary group in the incursion. Petitioners consider, therefore, that the torture and execution of civilians and other unlawful acts were perpetrated with the support, knowledge, and tolerance of State agents. 12. The petitioners allege that the State is responsible for the violation of the right to property considering that the paramilitary group, in the course of its incursion in the district of El Aro, burned and destroyed most of the residents’ dwellings. In addition, they are accused of having stolen some 1,200 head of cattle. In their account, petitioners indicate that the actions carried out by the illegal armed groups with the tolerance of the State deprived the inhabitants of the basic conditions for their subsistence, since they took from them the basic means for leading a dignified life. 13. In addition, the petitioners allege that the State is responsible for violating the right to protection of the family considering that the armed incursion and the forceful eviction of at least 40 families provoked the displacement of the local inhabitants, which is alleged to constitute a direct attack on the stability of the family group of the persons affected, particularly the minors. 14. As for the investigation of the facts by the judicial authorities, petitioners note that after a cursory effort in the official act of removing the bodies, the Medellín office of the special prosecutorial unit known as the Fiscalía Regional opened a preliminary investigation that was later transferred to the National Human Rights Unit of the Office of the Attorney General. They argue that several civilians have been called to give testimony in that investigation, but that it has advanced no further, and that the State has not executed the arrest warrants issued for the paramilitary chiefs. 15. Based on these allegations, the petitioners ask the Commission to declare the State responsible for violating the right to life, the victims’ right to humane treatment, the right to personal liberty, and the right to judicial protection, in conjunction with the general obligation to respect and ensure the enjoyment of those rights protected in the American Convention. 16. As regards compliance with the admissibility requirements set forth in the American Convention, the petitioners argues that this case should be considered in the context of the exception to the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies provided for at Article 46(2)(c), in view of the delay in the investigation. 1 They allege that the preliminary investigation continues open more than three years after the facts, and that as the InterAmerican Court has indicated in its case law, it is not enough for the domestic remedies to exist formally, but rather, they must be suitable and capable of restoring the rights violated. 2 17. As regards the justifications presented by the State in relation to the duration of the process in light of the complexity of the situation (see infra), the petitioners argued in the hearing held during the 110th session of the Commission that the Commission could not fail to carry out its obligation to collect evidence in the national territory. 3 As regards the alleged duplication of procedures with respect to case 12.050 (La Granja, Ituango) (see infra), the petitioners allege that the position articulated by the State is self-contradictory. B. The State’s position 18. As for the facts of the case, the State notes that according to the investigation carried out in the proceedings before the domestic courts, the deaths occurred in the context of a confrontation between a subversive armed dissident group and the Autodefensas de Córdoba y Urabá. 19. As regards the investigation, the State reports that the facts of the case were initially investigated by the then-Fiscalía Regional of Medellín and that the investigation was then 1 Initial petition of March 3, 2000. 2 Communication from the petitioners of October 10, 2000. 3 Hearing held during the 110th regular session of the IACHR, February 26, 2001. 3