6 the State reiterated the importance of juridical security in the context of the individual petitions procedure before the IACHR as a guarantee for the adequate international protection of human rights, especially in relation to the determination by the Commission of the alleged victims, the alleged violative acts, and the petitioners’ claim. This aspect necessarily implies considering and analyzing the arguments presented by both parties – petitioners and the State – throughout the admissibility phase of a petition. The State recognized in turn that in those admissibility reports if one effectively delimits the rights at issue in the dispute, but makes only brief reference to the facts, it is impossible to establish how these facts reveal the same pattern of conduct, or are similar to, those that were considered by the IACHR in deciding to join these matters. 25. The State also indicated in its response that it is not possible for it to send copies of the criminal and administrative records requested by the IACHR on March 15, 2002, given that the Office of the Attorney General indicated that they are under seal in light of the current stage of the investigations at issue in this matter. 26. The State’s observations on the merits were forwarded to the petitioners on December 17, 2012; they were to submit their observations within one month. The petitioners’ observations were received on February 21, 2013, and forwarded to the State on February 25, 2013; it was given one month to answer. 27. The State responded in a communication of March 11, 2013, by which it asked that several documents be sent that it considered missing with respect to the communication from the IACHR of February 25, 2013. This communication was answered by the IACHR on April 22, 2013. Subsequently, the State requested two additional extensions, on June 26, 2013, and August 23, 2013, for filing its observations on the additional information presented by the petitioners; both were granted by the IACHR. The State presented its additional observations related to the merits of this matter on October 21, 2013. B. Precautionary measures granted by the IACHR; provisional measures ordered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. 28. At the petitioners’ request, on October 22, 2004 the IACHR adopted precautionary measures for Mery Naranjo Jiménez and her next of kin, and for Socorro Mosquera Londoño. Underscoring the violence and intimidation that paramilitary groups targeted at community leaders of Medellín’s Comuna 13, as evidenced by the murder of Mrs. Ana Teresa Yarce on October 6, 2004, the Commission asked the Colombian government to adopt the necessary measures to guarantee the life and physical safety of Mery Naranjo Jiménez, Alba Mery Naranjo, Sandra Janneth Naranjo, Alejandro Naranjo, Juan David Naranjo, and Socorro Mosquera Londoño, and to report on the measures taken to investigate and put an end to the threats which prompted the adoption of precautionary measures. 29. On July 3, 2006, the Commission filed a request with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Court”) seeking provisional measures by which the State would be ordered to protect the life and personal integrity of Mery Naranjo and her family and to investigate the acts perpetrated against her and Mrs. Socorro Mosquera. The Commission stressed to the Court that Mrs. Naranjo and Mrs. Mosquera were recognized human rights defenders in Comuna 13 and had been involved in various complaints and inquiries of state agents for their alleged participation in human rights violations; and had been threatened as a result of the mentioned factors.