2 have been ordered to be held. The Commission concluded that the investigations were not carried out promptly and effectively, nor was an examination made of the many violations that occurred during “Operation Genesis,” the paramilitary incursions, the violations resulting from these, and the forced displacement they caused. Furthermore, the Commission concluded that the courts of law acted with insufficient diligence to promote criminal proceedings to clarify the acts of violence and to punish the responsible parties, as a result of which the facts remain in impunity. The State of Colombia ratified the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the ACHR”) on July 31, 1973, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on June 21, 1985. The Commission has designated Commissioner María Silvia Guillén Cardona, and Executive Secretary of the IACHR, Santiago A. Canton as its delegates. Likewise, Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, Deputy Executive Secretary, and Karla Quintana Osuna and Karin Mansel, will serve as legal advisors. In accordance with Article 35 of the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court, the Commission is enclosing with this communication a copy of Report 64/11 prepared in accordance with Article 50 of the American Convention, as well as a copy of the entire file before the Inter-American Commission (Appendix I) and the annexes used in drafting Report 64/11 (Annexes). Said merits report was notified to the Colombian State by means of communication of April 25, 2011, according to which it was granted a two-month period to report on compliance with the recommendations. On June 27, 2011 the State requested an extension of the two-month term that ended on June 25, which was granted until July 11, 2011. On July 12, 2011 the State filed its response. In the aforementioned response, the State considered that “it is meeting its obligations at the domestic and international levels through its different judicial bodies.” It also submitted detailed information on the legislation applicable to the Afro-Colombian population, as well as on the legislation relating to women. Further, it submitted information on the phenomenon of forced displacement, as well as on the state’s policies and regulations to combat it. Finally, it submitted information on the proceedings in progress that relate to the instant case. In this connection, Colombia furnished information “on the efforts and progress made to adequately address, in a prompt and comprehensive manner, the victims of this phenomenon and to overcome in the near future the forced displacement that affects part of the Colombian population.” Finally, it expressed its “irrefutable commitment to continue advancing the efforts necessary to overcome the persisting challenges related to the prevention of forced displacement and the care of victims, in turn strengthening mechanisms to guarantee the prevention and investigation of facts of this type that threaten the rights of people.” The Commission values the information submitted by the State, most of which was assessed in due course in the merits report, and underscores the great challenge faced by the Colombian State in addressing the serious situation of displacement and humanitarian assistance. This notwithstanding, the IACHR observes that the information furnished on this occasion does not clearly demonstrate the state’s response to the violations of the rights of the victims of Operation Genesis, nor its compliance with the recommendations to make reparations for the specific violations. Finally, the IACHR observes that, with regard to the administration of justice, its merits report determined that the investigations had not produced an effective outcome and notes that the information submitted by the state did not clearly show that progress had been made. In short, the Commission considers that the information provided does not demonstrate that the Colombian State has taken concrete measures to comply with the recommendations set out in the merits report. In consequence, the Commission submits this case to the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court in view of to the need to obtain justice for the victims and the failure of the State to carry out the