that such objections are of a preliminary nature. 33 If these objections cannot be considered without a prior analysis of the merits of the case, they cannot be examined by means of a preliminary objection. 34 36. Following its partial acknowledgement of responsibility (supra para. 21), the State reformulated its arguments in relation to: (i) the joinder of the stages of admissibility and merits in the procedure before the Commission, indicating that this would “not have the effect of annulling the competence of the […] Court”; rather, it asked the Court that, owing to the joinder, it carry out a “control of legality” of the Commission’s action, and (ii) the preliminary objection of exhaustion of the contentious-administrative jurisdiction, indicating that “this did not impede the Court from hearing the instant case,” but “would prevent the Court ordering the State to pay compensation.” Since they no longer constitute preliminary objections, the arguments on the request to carry out a “control of legality” of the procedure before the Commission will be examined infra in the chapter on preliminary considerations, while the arguments on the remedies available under the contentiousadministrative jurisdiction will be examined in the chapter on reparations of this Judgment. 37. Nevertheless, the Court understands that the following preliminary objections remain in effect: (i) lack of material competence due to the need to apply international humanitarian law as the special, main and exclusive law, and (ii) lack of temporal competence to examine the presumed violations of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance, in relation to Ana Rosa Castiblanco Torres. The Court recalls that preliminary objections may not limit, contradict or render ineffective the content of a State’s acknowledgement of responsibility. 35 The preliminary objections that remain in this case comply with these requirements and, therefore, the Court will proceed to examine them in the above order. 36 A. Alleged lack of material competence due to the need to apply international humanitarian law A.1) Arguments of the State and observations of the Commission and the representatives 38. In its answering brief, the State argued that “the applicable law is international humanitarian law, not as a law that supplements international human rights law […], but rather as the special, main and exclusive law”; hence the Court could not rule on certain facts and rights. 37 Following its partial acknowledgement of responsibility, the State indicated that “[b]oth the [Commission] and the representatives have clarified […] that they 33 Cf. Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Preliminary objections. Judgment of February 4, 2000. Series C No. 67, para. 34, and Case of the Pacheco Tineo Family v. Bolivia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2013. Series C No. 272, para. 15. 34 Cf. Case of Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 184, para. 39, and Case of the Pacheco Tineo Family v. Bolivia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2013. Series C No. 272, para. 15. 35 Cf. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 26, 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. 27. 36 The preliminary objections mentioned supra were maintained either partially or conditionally by the State. The Commission indicated that, taking into account the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility, “at the present time, all the preliminary objections are meaningless,” so that it would not be necessary to examine them. However, the State denied that this was the case. 37 Colombia did not explain the facts and rights to which it was referring because, in its answering brief, the State referred to facts relating to the case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia rather than to this case (supra footnote 4). 17