related to compliance with the commitments made by the States Parties to this instrument. 44 This article establishes that: For the purposes of this Convention, the processing of petitions or communications presented to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights alleging the forced disappearance of persons shall be subject to the procedures established in the American Convention on Human Rights and to the Statue and Regulations of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and to the Statute and Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, including the provisions on precautionary measures (italics added). 44. Therefore, the argument that what happened to Ana Rosa Castiblanco Torres could constitute forced disappearance is sufficient for the Court to exercise its competence to examine a possible violation of that Convention. The determination of whether or not what happened to Ana Rosa Castiblanco Torres constituted forced disappearance is a matter relating to the merits of the case that it is not incumbent on the Court to rule on in a preliminary manner. 45 Consequently, the Court rejects this preliminary objection. VI PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS A. The factual framework of the case A.1) Arguments of the parties 45. Following the public hearing the State asked that the Court exclude from the examination of this case what it called “new facts” included by the representatives in their motions and arguments brief. In its final written arguments, the State described these facts and asked that the following should be excluded from the examination of this case: (1) the supposed excessive use of force during the retaking of the Palace of Justice; (2) facts relating to the National Security Statute, the alleged practices of extrajudicial executions, arbitrary detentions, forced disappearances and torture, and of impunity for human rights violations, and the alleged implementation of military intelligence plans and manuals; (3) the presumed intentional withdrawal of security from the Palace of Justice; (4) the presumed responsibility of the President of the Republic at the time, Belisario Betancur Cuartas, for the facts of this case; (5) the supposed radio communications among the Military Forces; (6) the presumed threats and persecution of officials, witnesses and family members; (7) the facts relating to the presumed violation of the right to movement and residence (Article 22 of the Convention) to the detriment of René Guarín Cortés, Yolanda Santodomingo Albericci and the family of Auxiliary Justice Carlos Horacio Urán Rojas. 46. The representatives alleged that the State’s arguments did not constitute a preliminary objection, and “the Court should therefore reject them”; moreover, “the State had not filed them in its answering brief,” so that they were time-barred. Despite this, they indicated that “all the facts included in [their motions and arguments brief] were based on facts included in the Merits Report.” They added that “the State has been aware of the said facts since the start of the proceedings before the Court and has had numerous opportunities to contest them, so that their inclusion does not violate the State’s right of defense.” They also stressed that “the facts that the State seeks to see excluded from litigation have been examined by different Colombian judicial bodies, including the ordinary 44 Cf. Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, para. 110; Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 303, and Case of Osorio Rivera and family members v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013. Series C No. 274, para. 29. 45 Cf. Case of Osorio Rivera and family members v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013. Series C No. 274, para. 34. 20