American Convention alleged by the representatives, to the detriment of the next of kin of the presumed victims, and (f) the presumed violation of the obligation to prevent the taking of the Palace of Justice by the adoption of the necessary and sufficient measures to ensure the right to life of the presumed victims present in the building when it was taken. In addition, the dispute subsists in relation to the determination of possible reparations, costs and expenses and, in this regard, the Court will establish measures of reparations that are appropriate for this case in the corresponding chapter taking into account the requests of the representatives and the Commission, the relevant standards of the inter-American system for the protection of human rights, and the observations of the State. 32. As in other cases, 30 the Court considers that the acknowledgement made by the State has full legal effects in keeping with the above-mentioned Articles 62 and 64 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, and has important symbolic value to ensure the non-repetition of such events. 33. However, taking into consideration the egregious nature of the facts and the alleged violations, as well as its powers as an international organ for the protection of human rights, the Court will proceed to make a specific and comprehensive determination of the facts, because this will contribute to making reparation to the victims, to preventing the repetition of similar events and, in sum, to the purposes of the inter-American human rights jurisdiction. 31 The Court will also analyze and describe, as pertinent, the scope of the violations alleged by the Commission or the representatives, as well as the respective consequences as regards reparations in the following chapters. 34. Lastly, due to the change in the State’s position during the processing of this case before the Court, in this judgment, the Court will only reflect the arguments of the State and the corresponding replies of the representatives and the Commission that relate to the final and definitive position of Colombia with regard to the alleged facts and violations. The Court will not refer to disputes that could arise from the State’s initial arguments when those are contrary to its actual position, or when they have been expressly waived by the State subsequently, nor will it refer to the preliminary objections or preliminary considerations that are contrary to the actual position of the State. 32 V PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 35. The Court recalls that preliminary objections are mechanisms by which a State seeks to prevent the analysis of the merits of the matter concerned and, to this end, it may contest the admissibility of a case or the competence of the Court to hear a specific case or any of aspect of it, based on either the person, the matter, the time or the place, provided 30 Cf. inter alia, Case of Torres Millacura et al. v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 26, 2011. Series C No. 229, para. 37, and Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 28, 2013. Series C No. 268, para. 20. 31 Cf. Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2008. Series C No. 190, para. 24, and Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 28, 2013. Series C No. 268, para. 23. 32 The Court understands that the State withdrew the preliminary objections concerning the joinder of the stages of admissibility and merits in the procedure before the Commission, the facts relating to Eduardo Matson Ospino, and the supposed failure to exhaust domestic remedies with regard to the contentious-administrative jurisdiction. The Court also considers that the State’s arguments in its answering brief concerning the absence of “due representation of the presumed victims” in this case is contrary to its partial acknowledgement of responsibility, and will therefore not rule in this regard. 16