village and that the deaths that occurred were caused by a bomb installed by the FARC guerrilla in a truck that was in the main street of the village. In this regard, the State argued that the right to the truth has not been violated by not having investigated the supposed masterminds, given that the above-mentioned final criminal judgment exists convicting the said FARC leader for the facts and, in addition, that, under the rules and protocols of the chain of command the Air Force Commander’s authorization was not required to execute the operation in which the AN-M1A2 explosive device was launched, because this was classified as a “Charlie mission.” Furthermore, it indicated that State agents had not obstructed justice, because the testimony of members of the Armed Forces about the facts, far from being an instrument of impunity, had contributed to clarify the truth and was part of the exercise of its right of defense. In addition, it argued that several judicial proceedings had been initiated, and were still underway owing to their complexity, including one opened since 2011 in which members of the Armed Forces were being investigated for the presumed machine gun attack against the civilian population. 139. Regarding the military criminal jurisdiction, the State argued that, even though the case was initially prosecuted under this jurisdiction, the latter was impartial and the case had finally been investigated under the ordinary justice system. 140. The State also indicated that it had made “integral reparation” to the victims in proceedings before the contentious administrative jurisdiction in which compensation corresponding to the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused had been claimed.190 It argued that all the damage caused by the legitimate operation by the Armed Forces had been repaired, under the premise of “special damage,” to those persons who proved their status as victims and the damage caused, acceding partially to the petitioners’ claims for compensation. Owing to the conciliation agreement approved by the Council of State, reparation had been made to 19 of the 23 families who filed claims.191 The State asked that, despite the foregoing, should the Court determine the responsibility of the State, when establishing reparations, the Court take into account the compensation awarded under domestic law, so that the amounts previously allocated could be deducted from the sums established in the judgment. B. Considerations of the Court B.1. Ruling on the purpose of this “acknowledgement of responsibility” case and the State’s act called 141. In the proceedings before the Court in the instant case, the State has substantially altered its arguments in relation to those maintained before the Commission, as regard how the facts of the case occurred and the corresponding actions of its organs for the administration of justice, founded mainly on a factual hypothesis based to a great extent on a judgment delivered by the Criminal Court of the Arauca Specialized Circuit on January 31, 2011. On the basis of this ruling, the State has also presented a text that it calls an “acknowledgement of responsibility” in relation to the alleged violation of Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention. The Commission and the representatives argue that this fact exceeds the factual framework of the case; that the State has incurred in a violation of the estoppel principle, and that the text is not an acknowledgement and is not valid. It corresponds to the Court to recall the purpose of the responsibility of States Parties under the Convention in order to assess the State’s position, define the purpose of this case, and make the corresponding analysis of the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection. 190 The State asserted that, “on this point, it should be clarified that those affected did not claim recognition of the damage that could have been caused to affective life, or the adoption of measures of satisfaction and guarantees of nonrepetition; consequently, the conciliation agreement did not refer to these, because, under domestic law, the conciliation cannot include requests that were not made by the applicants in the specific case.” 191 The State indicated that the Third Section of the Council had approved the conciliation with regard to 19 of the 23 applications that had been joindered and that the denial of four of them was due to the fact that the interested parties had not provided the necessary evidence to authenticate the injuries suffered or their relationship to the victims who lost their life, so that the decision in these four cases remains pending. ‐ 40 ‐