12 43. In addition, the Court bears in mind that, pursuant to Article 38(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, in its reply brief, the defendant State should have declared “whether it accepts the facts and claims or whether it contradicts them,” and “the Court may consider accepted those facts that have not been expressly denied and the claims that have not been expressly contested.” 44. In this regard, the Court notes that, although the representatives included next of kin who were not indicated as victims in the application in their brief containing pleadings and motions, when the State acknowledged its responsibility, it had seen the list of individuals alleged by the representatives to be victims by virtue of their status as next of kin. The Court finds that, by not contesting the qualification of these next of kin as victims, the State accepted their inclusion as victims. 45. Likewise, the Court notes that, in its acknowledgment of responsibility, the State did not contest the relationships among these next of kin, nor did it contest the affectionate relationship these individuals had with the victims. The State’s observations with regard to the next of kin were limited to rejecting the reparations claims of those who did not “present any type of claim in the domestic forum, despite having had the opportunity to do so,” as well as those who had received some type of compensation in the domestic forum (supra para. 17). Given the foregoing, and given that the State acknowledged its responsibility in this case, the Court does not consider it necessary to analyze the evidence on this matter, since, based on the positions of the parties, it assumes that the next of kin listed by the Commission in its application, and by the representatives in their brief containing pleadings and motions (supra para. 41), do in fact have the kinship and affectionate relationships alleged. 46. Similarly, the Court finds that the State’s arguments regarding the next of kin who have not presented a claim within the domestic forum (supra para. 17) are related to the preliminary objection for the failure to exhaust domestic remedies. This objection was analyzed by the Commission in its report on admissibility. In that report, the Commission found that the State tacitly waived this objection, and that as a result it was prevented –by virtue of the principle of estoppel– from raising this objection before this Tribunal.16 Moreover, in its reply brief, Colombia indicated that “taking into account that […the State] acknowledges its responsibility for the events, this position implies a waiver of the right to present preliminary objections, according to the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court.” 47. At the corresponding time (infra para. 230 to 233), the Court will analyze the State’s arguments with regard to reparations, specifically Colombia’s request that the Court “exclude from the list of injured parties the surviving victims and next of kin who received compensation in the domestic legal system for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages caused.” 48. Based on the preceding, this Tribunal grants full effect to the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility for the violation of Article 5 of the Convention and to the “partial” acknowledgment for the violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention “regarding the next of kin of the victims” alleged by the Commission in its application and by the representatives in their brief containing pleadings and motions (supra para. 41). However, 16 Cf. Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.). Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 65; and Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al., supra note 7, para. 176.