Carlos Arturo Uva Velandia was convicted, and another one before the contentious-administrative jurisdiction in which the Nation – National Army was absolved of administrative liability. 16. As for the criminal proceeding, the State confirms that it culminated with a judgment on appeal handed down by the Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Santa Rosa de Viterbo on December 19, 1994, which affirmed the judgment of first instance that convicted Juan Alexis Rodríguez Burgos and sentenced him to 16 years in prison for the homicide of Carlos Arturo Uva and ordered the payment of moral and material damages to his parents. The State argues that the regular justice system “reached a reasoned, diligent decision respectful of due process, including taking into consideration the material and moral injury that the next-of-kin of the alleged victim suffered.” 17. With respect to the contentious-administrative proceeding, the State argues that the petitioner expresses his inconformity with the judgment on appeal of the Council of State, since it took its decision “… based on the failure to attach to the administrative proceeding the final criminal judgment on appeal.” Specifically, the State alleges that the decision of the Council of State was not based exclusively on failure to attach the criminal judgment on appeal to the process, but was also adopted because “…the criminal judgment of conviction does not necessarily lead to a judgment of conviction due to a failure of the administration, for the criminal liability that stems from the punishable act of the agent, characterized by being personal, is ostensibly different from that arising from a failure of the service, which is generally anonymous.” 18. The State argues that the fact that a full copy of the criminal proceeding was not introduced into the administrative proceeding is not due to the negligence of the administrative judge, and reiterates that even had the criminal judgment on appeal been included in the record, that did not necessarily imply a finding of liability in the contentious-administrative jurisdiction, since the nature of the liability and the subject thereof in both jurisdictions is different, and moreover, no service-related nexus had been found in the actions of Juan Alexis Rodríguez. 19. The State also alleges that even in the event that the contentious-administrative jurisdiction were to have found the State responsible and at the same time a criminal compensation was ordered – as in effect occurred, it would not have been possible to order any compensation in the contentiousadministrative jurisdiction for the material and moral injury since double recovery goes against the principle according to which reparation must not enrich or impoverish the victim. It alleges that to that extent the criminal judge was diligent in ordering reparation to be paid by Juan Alexis Rodríguez. 20. The State argues that the petitioner’s claim is aimed at obtaining additional compensation from the State, and to do so he seeks to have the Commission sit as a fourth instance. It indicates that both the Commission and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights have affirmed that the fact that the petitioners, in the domestic jurisdiction, do not obtain decisions with results favorable to their interests, does not imply “(i) that there is an exception to the exhaustion of domestic remedies due to a denial of justice or (ii) that there is a violation of their right to judicial protection enshrined in Article 25 of the American Convention.” 21. It alleges that as has been indicated by the Inter-American Court, only if one makes a showing “(i) that the domestic courts did not examine the validity of the remedies, (ii) that the decisions were motivated by futile reasons, or (iii) that there is a practice or policy ordered or tolerated by the government authorities whose effect is to impede certain complainants from making use of domestic remedies, may one apply the exception to the exhaustion of domestic remedies,” otherwise the Commission would be acting as a fourth instance. It argues in addition that in this case, none of the three requirements indicated has been met, accordingly the claim must be declared inadmissible. 22. As for the reparation of the harm, the State argues that the parents of Carlos Arturo Uva are beneficiaries of compensation ordered by the criminal judge for the material and moral injury caused. It argues that if the compensation were not admissible for the next-of-kin, they had the possibility of becoming a civilian party in the criminal proceeding or of bringing an action for tort liability. 4