27. In light of the preceding, the Commission observes that the State has been able to present a defense during the proceedings in relation to the deaths of Messrs. Romero and Mr. Ramírez, both in its responses to the observations of the petitioners and in the public hearing held on the merits of the case where this issue was specifically discussed.9 The Commission observes, therefore, that an allegation exists in relation to the link between the three deaths and thus in accordance with the principle of procedural economy it is not reasonable to demand separate proceedings before the inter-American system when the respective allegations have been known to and widely debated by both parties and, therefore, the right to defense and the adversarial principle have been safeguarded. 28. Furthermore, the Commission notes that at the domestic level the existence of a linkage between the three deaths has been acknowledged. The Commission also notes that in the issues decisions of the contentious-administrative process, the relationship between the facts is noted. This, in addition to strengthening the coincidence of the circumstances of time and location in which they happened, allows for the consideration of the admissibility analysis conducted on the situation of Mr. Quiñónez, in principle also applicable to the situation of Mr. Romero and Mr. Ramírez. 29. Without prejudice of the above, bearing in mind the issue raised by the State about the possible effects on its right to defense due to the absence of an express statement of admissibility with regard to Mr. Romero and Mr. Ramírez, the Commission will conduct a specific analysis to ensure that, indeed, the considerations contained in the admissibility report are analogous to the situation of the two alleged victims whose inclusion is requested at this stage. 30. In relation to the analysis of the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies established in Article 46(1)(a), the Commission reiterates that in cases in which a person is deprived of their life, the decisions of the contentious-administrative jurisdiction do not constitute ideal mechanisms to comply with Article 46 of the Convention, given that said jurisdiction is a mechanism that pertains to the supervision of the administrative activity of the State and that, at least until the date of the facts, only permits compensation for damage and harm caused by irregularities in that system.10 Nevertheless, these remedies do not constitute a means for obtaining justice with regard to the responsible parties. With regard to the disciplinary jurisdiction, this has been understood to comply with the requirement of exhausting domestic remedies as complementary to other means, but not as a mechanism that, on its own, can be considered ideal and effective for justice. 31. With regards to the criminal proceedings started ex officio by the State, in accordance with the criteria reiterated by the Commission, constitutes the ideal remedy to deal with cases related to the violent death of a person, 11 the information available indicates that to date, as with the case of Mr. Quiñónez, more than 19 years after the deaths of Messrs. Romero and Ramírez occurred no definitive judgment on the facts exists and the criminal process pursued before 67th Office of the Prosecutor (Fiscalía 67 de la Unidad Nacional de Derechos Humanos y Derecho Internacional Humanitario) cumulated the three persons in light of the identity of circumstances in which they would have lost their lives. Additionally, the Commission observes that analysis of the other requirements of admissibility, particularly the requirement of timely submission, also applies analogously. 32. In light of the above, the Commission confirms that, given the existence of allegations about the link between the three deaths and the manner in which they have been addressed domestically, the considerations of admissibility in the case of Mr. Quiñónez apply in the same way to the claim related to the deaths of Messrs. José Gregorio Romero and Albeiro Ramírez Jorge. In this regard, the Commission considers that the inclusion of these persons in the merits stage, dealing with the same issues and the admissibility 9 IACHR, Hearing of Case 12.711, Wilfredo Quiñónez Bárcenas et al. (Colombia), held during the 144 Period of Sessions, March 26, 2012. Available at: http://www.oas.org/OASPage/videosasf/2012/03/032612_PVidal_3.wmv. 10 IACHR, Report No. 123/10, Case 11.144, Gerzon Jairzinho González Arroyo and others., (Colombia), October 23, 2010, para. 45; IACHR, Report No. 68/09, Wilfredo Quiñónez Barcenas and Family, August 5, 2009, para. 42. 11 IACHR, Report No. 8/11, Anibal Aguas Acosta (Ecuador), March 22, 2011, para. 30.