9 F[OUND]: 1. The there is no longer any dispute about the preliminary objection regarding “undue application of Articles 50 and 51 of the American Convention”. AND [DECIDED]: 2. To accept, for all its effects, the decision of the State to desist from the first preliminary objection regarding “undue application of Articles 50 and 51 of the American Convention”. 3. To accept, for all its effects, the acknowledgment of international responsibility by the State, under the terms set forth in paragraphs 29 and 30 of the instant Judgment. 4. To dismiss the second preliminary objection regarding exhaustion of domestic remedies and to continue hearing the instant case regarding the scope of the acknowledgment of responsibility of the State with regard to the facts that took place in the instant case that were not included in the acknowledgment of responsibility by the State; the alleged violations of Articles 1(1), 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention; the alleged violations of Articles 19 and 22 of said treaty alleged by the representatives, as well as regarding reparations and costs. 5. To hold the public hearing summoned by the January 28, 2005 Order of the President of the Court, as well as the other procedural acts regarding the merits, reparations, and costs in the instant case. The object of the testimony and expert opinions will be restricted as appropriate, regarding those parts of the merits, reparations, and costs with regard to which there is still a dispute among the parties. 6. To notify the instant Order to the State of Colombia, to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and to the representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin. 38. Once said Judgment was issued, the Court held the public hearing on the merits, reparations, and costs, and it heard the testimony and expert opinions of the persons summoned to appear before the Court (supra paras. 25 and 30). 39. On March 23, 2005 Federico Andreu submitted a written summary of the expert opinion given during the public hearing. 40. On April 8, 2005 the State, the Commission and the representatives submitted their final written pleadings. 41. On May 9, 2005 the “Manuel Cepeda Vargas” Foundation submitted an amicus curiae in the instant case. 42. On May 15, 2005 the Centro Internacional por la Justicia Transicional submitted an amicus curiae prepared by Paul van Zyl, Lisa Magarrel and Leonardo Filippini, for it to be taken into consideration in the instant case. 43. On August 5, 2005 the Secretariat, under instructions by the President of the Court and in accordance with the terms of Article 45(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, asked the representatives and the State to send certain information and several documents, no later than August 19, 2005, as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case. Specifically, it requested information on the ongoing