analysis being analogous, does not affect the State’s right to defense and is consistent with the principle of procedural economy. Consequently, the Commission will proceed to incorporate them into the merits analysis as alleged victims in the case. B. Requests of the State in relation to Case 12.335 33. First, the Colombian State indicated that the petitioners incorporated a “new factual situation” in the merits observations, to the effect that the death of Mr. Villamizar happened pursuant to an alleged systematic practice of extrajudicial executions in the area. The State indicated that in order to make a statement about this alleged context, the Commission would have to “revert the current proceedings to the admissibility report.” In this regard, the Commision notes that the admissibility report has the objective of analyzing whether the petition fulfills the requirements established in the Convention for it to be cognizable by the organs of the inter-American system. The definition of the factual framework, including the facts of the case and the context in which they are framed, takes place at the merits stage. It is in the merits stage that both parties have ample opportunity to present their positions about the factual and juridical aspects of the case and provide the evidence they consider to be relevant. It corresponds to the Commission, as it will do, to conduct its analysis of the facts and the law in light of all the information in the case file or other public information that may be relevant, as specified in Article 43.1 of its Rules of Procedure. The inclusion of factual or contextual information in the merits stage that relates to the object of an admitted case does not affect the right to juridical certainty, nor the State’s right of defense. The Commission reiterates that, as occurred in the instant case, all the documentation in the case file is subject to the adversarial principle. In light of the preceding, the Commission will consider the examination of the alleged context in its merits analysis. 34. Second, the Commission notes that the State objected to the extrajudicial testimonies of the next of kin because these would lack spontaneity, the contents would be “basically identical” and they would contain contradictions. The Commission recalls that in the inter-American system the weighing of evidence proceeds with greater flexibility than in the domestic legal systems. This is the case because the objective of the analysis is not to determine the criminal responsibility of perpetrators of human rights violations, but rather the international responsibility of the State based on the acts and omissions of its authorities. The Commission observes that the referenced testimonies were rendered before a notary public, therefore there is no reason to doubt its authenticity. In relation to the alleged contradictions, the Commission will analyze and assess the content of said testimonies together with the rest of the evidence in the case file. V. FACTUAL AND LEGAL ANALYSIS 35. The Commission observes that the allegations provided by the parties, describe a series of alleged extrajudicial executions that take place in more general context of extrajudicial executions in Colombia known by the Commission, in relation to extrajudicial executions committed during the 1990’s in diverse areas of the country, as a result of the armed conflict and battle to control of the national territory and its natural resources between the armed actors in the conflict. The Commission decided to jointly analyze the cases due to identifying in the allegations of the petitioners common elements in the manner in which the alleged victims claim to have lost their lives, specifically: i) the authors are members of the Army; ii) the deaths were purportedly justified by alleged confrontations in which the members of the Army exercised their right to legitimate self-defense; and iii) the victims were ostensibly linked to subversive acts or to the guerrillas. 36. This phenomenon has been monitored by the Commission and by other international authorities for several years through various mechanisms. In this regard, the Commission considers it necessary before turning to the specific factual considerations in each case to determine preliminary considerations based on the findings of its monitoring as well as that conducted by other international bodies on the alleged modus operandi in which the alleged executions were perpetrated. 37. The Commission will then rule on the violations of specific rights. The Commission will rule in the following order: i) the rights to life, personal integrity, personal liberty and honor and dignity of Mr. Gustavo Giraldo Villamizar Durán; ii) the rights to life, personal integrity, personal liberty and honor and