defense, juridical certainty and procedural equality. It stated that it did not violate rights to life, personal integrity and personal liberty to the detriment of Mr. Quiñónez given that the facts occurred in the course of an operation and these “happened in flagrante delicto and were the sole responsibility of the victim.” It pointed out that there is no evidence to conclude extrajudicial executions occurred in relation to Messrs. Romero and Ramírez. It added that through a forensic report it identified that the findings of the autopsy did not show torture and the Commission does not have competence to rule with regard to the violations of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, given that it had not been ratified by Colombia at the time of the facts. Finally, indicated it did not violate the rights to the judicial guarantees and judicial protection because a diligent investigation was carried out on the facts that resulted in a sanctioning judgment in the first instance, after which diverse procedural activities and evidence practice have been carried out. It added that through the contentitious-administrative process the next of kin of Wilfredo Quiñónez were duly repaired. IV. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS 23. Prior to carrying out its analysis of the facts and the law, the Commission will rule on certain aspects of a preliminary character raised by the petitioners and the State. A. Determining the victims of Case 12.711 24. The petitioners requested that Mr. José Gregorio Romero and Mr. Albeiro Ramírez Jorge be recognized as alleged victims, as they would have been arbritrarily detained jointly with Mr. Wilfredo Quiñónez and, later, tortured and executed. The petitioners explained that at the moment of submitting the petition they were not authorized to represent these persons, solely Mr. Wilfredo Quiñónez. Meanwhile, the State opposed the request, indicating that their addition would violate the adversarial principle and principles of defense, juridical certainty and procedural equality. Specifically, it indicated that the Commission did not carry out a prior admissibility analysis of the processes in the internal jurisdiction with the objective of determining whether the requirements established by the Commission were met. Concretely, with regard to the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies, the State explained that the final treatment of the cases in the contentious process was different because in the case of Mr. Wilfredo Quiñónez, the State had recognized administrative responsibility for his death, but this was not true for the other cases. 25. The Commission recalls that, according to the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court, the alleged victims must be identified in the merits report.7 In this regard, given the relationship with the analysis carried out in the admissibility report, the request of the petitioners may be addressed at that procedural stage. 26. With regard to said request, the Commission observes that since the admissibility stage, the situation of Mr. Romero and Mr. Ramírez was brought to the attention of the State, as stated in Admissibility Report No. 68-098, specifically in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8. The petitioners indicated that on September 3, 1995 Mr. Quiñónez along with Messrs. Romero and Ramírez rode their bicycles to a party when they were chased and detained by members of the Army and the next day their bodies found. With respect to this version, which constitutes the claim that allegedly generates international responsibility, as noted in paragraph 23 of the Admissibility Report, the State argued that eyewitness at no time identified Messrs. Quiñónez, Ramírez and Romero as the persons who got on board the truck where there were allegedly military officers. Likewise, as noted in the case file before the Commission, during the merits stage, the State has presented its arguments in relation to these deaths, indicating that these were isolated events distinct the death of Mr. Quiñónez and which are not attributable to its agents. 7 I/A Court H. R., Case of Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 28, 2014. Series C No. 282, para. 53. 8IACHR, Report 68/09, Admissibility Wilfredo Quñónez Bárcenas y Familia (Colombia), August 5, 2009.