alleged victims, of Mr. José Gregorio Romero and Mr. Albeiro Ramírez Jorge, whose representation was acquired after the adoption of the Admissibility Report. They indicated that these people died in the same circumstances of mode, time and location as Wilfredo Quiñónez. They pointed out that the State violated the following rights protected by the Convention: i) to life, by virtue of the State not adopting measures to prevent the deprivation of the life of the alleged victims nor abstaining from carrying out such actions; ii) to personal integrity in relation to artcles 1, 6 and 8 of the American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, because the victims suffered torture and degrading treatment as part of an acting pattern by the members of the police force which, in their opinión, pretends that the victims were in combat and, therefore, were members of the guerrillas; iii) to personal liberty, because the victims were detained by the police force and obliged to enter a truck without detainment orders or being found in a flagrant situation; and iv) to judicial guarantees and judicial protection, by virtue of the impunity of the facts given the application of military immunity, as well as the lack of due diligence and of definite judgment by the civil jurisdiction. B. Position of the State 18. The State requested the rejection of the denounced facts as being consistent with an alleged systemic practice of extrajudicial executions. It pointed out the facts do not correspond to a policy of the State and these are isolated situations that have been duly investigated. The State carried out a narration of the human rights situation that happened in diverse areas of the country as a result of the armed conflict, largely for the acts of guerrilla groups, as well as related acts of self-defense. The State pointed out that, faced with acts of violence, it has adopted a series of measures through joint actions with the Attorney General, the Prosecutor’s Office and the Public Force. The State conducted in each of the petitions a detailed narration of the normative and public policy actions carried out with the objective of improving the situation and developing a policy of promotion of and respect for human rights. 19. In relation to Case 12.335, related to the death of Gustavo Giraldo Villamizar Durán, the State requested a finding that the Convention has not been violated because the death happened as a result of the legitimate use of force. Likewise it stated that such use of force was carried out within a regulated normative framework, that the operation was duly planned, and the military officers who intervened were adequately trained. With regard to judicial guarantees and judicial protection, the State stated that the military criminal jurisdiction was competent to know the facts and that the investigation was carried out within the guidelines established by the Convention and “the rules of hermeneutics.” With regard to the right to honor and dignity, it stated that the membership of Mr. Villamizar in the ELN was duly demonstrated. 20. In relation to Case 12.336, concerning the death of Mr. Elio Gelves Carrillo, the State indicated that it did not violate the rights to life and personal integrity because his death was a result of a confrontation where the military acted in legitimate self-defense. It stated that it did not violate the rights of the child because Elio Gelves was born on February 23, 1979 and, therefore, on the date of his death in May 1997 he was already 18 years old. It stated that it did not violate rights to judicial protection and judicial guarantees since the military criminal jurisdiction took a decision motivated, diligent and respectful of due process in a reasonable time. Finally, it stated that in relation to the right to honor and dignity, the Commission did not declare admissible said Article in its Admissibility Report No. 104-11, therefore “it is inadequate to debate the merits” of acts and rights already rejected by the Commission. 21. In relation to Case 12.757, concerning the death of Carlos Uva Velandia, the State indicated it did not violate the rights alleged by the petitioners because the judgment of the criminal jurisdiction as well as the judgment proffered in the contentious-administrative field constituted adequate and effective remedies, allowing the victims final judgments in a reasonable time. It added that those processes resulted in the strong condemnation of the soldier who deprived Mr. Uva of his life. The State indicated that if the Commission reviewed those judgments it would be acting as a fourth instance. 22. In relation to Case 12.711, concerning the death of Wilfredo Quiñónez, the State noted that the petitioners added as alleged victims of the acts José Gregorio Romero Reyes and Albeiro Ramírez Jorge and their next of kin, who “where not admitted” in the admissibility report. It pointed out that if the Commission ruled with regard to these persons it would affect the adversarial principle and the principles of