40. Furthermore, bearing in mind the violations that the State did not acknowledge, and the requests made by the representatives and the Commission, the Court will issue a judgment determining the events that occurred based on the evidence collected in these proceedings and in light of the acknowledgment of international responsibility, and examining the alleged human rights violations that have not been established. This helps ensure that reparation is made to the victims and similar events do not occur in the future; in other words, it helps attain the objectives of the inter-American human rights jurisdiction.20 The Court will also rule on the reparation measures, taking the State’s declarations into account. V PRIOR CONSIDERATION REGARDING THE DETERMINATION OF THE ALLEGED VICTIMS 41. In its answering brief, the State raised two issues that, it affirmed, make up a “set of closely interrelated arguments”: “a preliminary objection based on this Court’s lack of jurisdiction over the person, with respect to the alleged victims whose status as such has not been [duly] determined, [and] a prior question requesting the exclusion of those alleged victims.”21 42. The Court accepts that the arguments that Colombia presented as a preliminary objection and as a prior question are substantively the same, and do not refer to aspects of this Court’s jurisdiction, nor to the fulfilment of the relevant admissibility requirements. The Court has pointed out that the arguments related to the exclusion of certain persons from the group of alleged victims, even though they have been put forth in the form of a preliminary objection, are not substantively relevant, since the State “does not explain the reasons why the case submitted would not be admissible or why the Court would not have jurisdiction to hear it,”22 and the Court has repeatedly addressed the identification of the alleged victims as a prior question.23 Therefore, Colombia’s arguments will be examined below as a prior consideration. A) Arguments of the parties and the Commission 43. The State argued that 15 people should not be considered alleged victims, because one or more of the following situations apply in every case: a) They are not identified in the Merits Report, or are not identified correctly: i.-according to a document annexed to the pleadings and motions brief (Annex 1), it appears that the representatives include “Cindy Paola de la Barrera Simanca” as an alleged victim, but she is not mentioned in the Merits Report; the Commission only presented arguments concerning specific violations of the first subparagraph of each of those articles. 20 Case of Tiu Tojin v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2008. Series C No. 190, para. 26 and Case of Digna Ochoa and family members v. Mexico, supra, para. 25. 21 The State, also as a “prior question,” made “observations […] regarding the proceedings before the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights.” In submitting its observations, it did not make any requests to the Court. Therefore, there is no need to address them. 22 Case of Noguera et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 9, 2020. Series C No. 401, para. 12. 23 Cf., among others, Case of VRP, VPC and others v. Nicaragua. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 350, paras. 44-49; Case of Casa Nina v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2020. Series C No. 419, paras. 28-31; Case of Guachalá Chimbo et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 26, 2021. Series C No. 423, paras. 22-25, and Case of the National Federation of Maritime and Port Workers (FEMAPOR) v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of February 1, 2022. Series C No. 448, paras. 27-34. 12