8 alleged victims in the application and in the written brief containing pleadings and motions. The representatives, in turn, expressed their appreciation for the remembrance of the alleged victims and the apology to their next of kin and to Colombian society. They added that while the statement expressed the willingness of the State to move forward in elucidation of the case, it was “unsatisfactory” regarding the key factual and legal issues that are pertinent to resolve the case. Finally, they asked that the stage of the proceeding continue in broad terms, addressing both factual and legal issues, as well as reparations. On the other hand, the Commission and the representatives stated that there was a fundamental contradiction between acknowledgment of responsibility regarding certain rights and maintaining certain preliminary objections. The State, in turn, recognized the autonomy of the Court to assess the legal effects of the acknowledgment of responsibility by the State, and ratified the request made in its statement regarding said legal effects. It also expressed that if the Court considered the preliminary objection to be in order, the Court would lose its competence to decide on compensation, but the State would be able to establish said reparations based on its domestic legislation. 37. On March 7, 2005 the Court issued a Judgment on Preliminary Objections and Acknowledgment of Responsibility1, in which it made the following observations: 25. The State has desisted from the first preliminary objection regarding “undue application of Articles 50 and 51 of the American Convention” and it has ratified its second preliminary objection regarding non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. 26. The State has also acknowledged its international responsibility for the violation of Articles 4(1), 5(1), 5(2), 7(1) and 7(2) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in connection with the facts mentioned in section B of Chapter VI of the application filed by the Commission. […] 29. Under the terms stated by the parties, the Court notes that there continues to be a dispute among them about the preliminary objection regarding non-exhaustion of domestic remedies; the scope of the acknowledgment of responsibility of the State regarding 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. 30. On the other hand, by acknowledging responsibility in the instant case, the State has implicitly accepted the full competence of the Court to hear the instant case, for which reason the second preliminary objection raised by the State is no longer a preliminary issue. Furthermore, the content of said objection is closely linked to the merits of the instant matter, especially with regard to the alleged violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. Therefore, said preliminary objection must be dismissed and the Court must continue to hear the merits, reparations, and costs in the instant case. 31. Therefore, while said acknowledgment by the State does not interrupt the process of receiving testimony and expert opinions as ordered, the purpose of said testimony and expert opinions set forth in the President’s Order must be restricted as appropriate, regarding those parts of the merits, reparations, and costs with regard to which there continues to be a dispute among the parties. Therefore, the Court, unanimously: 1 See Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”. Preliminary Objections and Acknowledgment of Responsibility. Judgment of March 7, 2004. Series C No. 122.