2 22(1) and 25 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of María del Socorro Mosquera Londoño, Mery del Socorro Naranjo Jiménez, Ana Teresa Yarce and their next of kin, and the violation of Article 4 of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Ana Teresa Yarce. 4. On July 29, 2010, the IACHR joined the cases 12.595, Miryam Eugenia Rúa Figueroa et al. (Comuna 13); 12.596, Luz Dary Ospina Bastidas et al. (Comuna 13); and 12.621, Mary Naranjo et al. (Comuna 13), for purposes of the decision on the merits, pursuant to Article 29(1)(d) of its Rules of Procedure, since the three cases address similar facts and reveal the same pattern of conduct. 5. The State maintained during part of the merits phase - between November 4, 2010 and February 13, 2012 - that it reserved the right not to present its observations on the petitioners’ submissions regarding the merits until three procedural matters were resolved. The State requested that the Commission: (i) properly characterize the facts in dispute in the admissibility reports on the three cases; (ii) once the facts of each case have been properly characterized, adequately justify and defend its decision to join the three cases in question; and (iii) define the legal consequences of the petitioners’ belated and unjustified presentation of additional observations on the merits of the three cases.2 These aspects were answered by the IACHR on March 15, 2012, in the terms described in paragraph 21 of this report. After this communication from the Commission, the State has requested five extensions to present its merits observations, which were granted by the IACHR. 6. On November 16, 2012, the State presented its observations on the merits in this matter, in which it reiterated two or three of the procedural requests included in its prior communications associated with the failure to state facts that tend to establish violations in the admissibility and the joinder of the three cases. In its observations on the merits, the State also argues that the contextual assertions made by the petitioners in their arguments on the merits lack evidentiary support, and it affirms that there is no State responsibility for the human rights violations that have been alleged. The State also indicates that it is unable it to submit copies of the criminal and administrative records requested by the IACHR on March 15, 2002, as they are under seal in view of the current stage of the investigations relevant to this matter. 7. After examining the evidence and arguments offered by the parties, in the present report the Commission concludes that the State of Colombia is responsible for violations to the rights recognized in articles 4, 5(1), 7(1), 7(3), 8(1), 16, 17(1), 19, 21(1), 21(2), 22 and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, and the violation of Article 7 of the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women, to the detriment of the victims, as described in paragraph 368 of this report. The Commission also considers that it does not have sufficient elements to pronounce regarding Articles 11 and 27 of the American Convention in the present report. Therefore, the Inter-American Commission presents its recommendations to the Colombian State, pursuant to Article 50 of the American Convention. II. PROCESSING WITH THE IACHR SUBSEQUENT TO THE ADMISSIBILITY REPORTS A. Processing of the case 2 Colombian State’s Note DIDHD/GOI. No. 64785/2720, forwarded to the IACHR on November 4, 2010, p. 12.