the decisions taken at the domestic level in that jurisdiction can be taken into account when assessing the requests for reparations in a case before the inter-American system, because the victims or their next of kin must have extensive opportunities in their pursuit of fair compensation.37 However, the contentious-administrative route will be relevant in cases in which it has been used effectively by individuals harmed by violations of their rights or by their next of kin. In other words, it is not a remedy that, of necessity, must always be exhausted, so that it does not inhibit the Court’s competence to hear the instant case. Notwithstanding, the Court will take into account, as pertinent, the implications and results of this judicial mechanism in the complete and adequate determination of State responsibility, as well as with regard to establishing integral reparation in favor of the presumed victims. This analysis and assessment will be conducted taking into account the circumstances of each specific case, according to the nature of the right that is alleged to have been violated and the claims of the individual who has instituted proceedings. However, in consequence, this analysis may correspond to the merits of the matter or, if appropriate, to the reparations stage. 39. Based on the above, the Court rejects the second preliminary objection filed by the State. IV COMPETENCE 40. The Inter-American Court is competent to hear this case, in the terms of Article 62(3) of the Convention, because Colombia has been a State Party to the American Convention since July 31, 1973, and recognized the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction on June 21, 1985. V EVIDENCE 41. Based on Articles 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 57 and 58 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as on its case law on evidence and its assessment,38 the Court will examine and assess the documentary probative elements forwarded by the Commission, the representatives and the State at different procedural opportunities, as well as the statements of the presumed victims and witnesses, and the expert opinions provided. To this end, the Court will abide by the principles of sound judicial discretion, within the corresponding legal framework.39 A. Documentary, testimonial and expert evidence 42. The Court has received documents presented by the Inter-American Commission, the representatives and the State. The Court has also received affidavits prepared by 17 presumed victims: 1) Jorge Henry Vanegas Ortiz; 2) Mario Galvis Gelves; 3) María Cenobia Panqueva; 4) Lucero Talero Sánchez; 5) Ana Miriam Duran Mora; 6) Giovanny Díaz Cobos; 7) Norelis Leal Pacheco; 8) José Rafael Hernández; 9) Deicy Damarys Cedano; 10) Nilsan Díaz Herrera; 11) Hugo Fernely Pastrana Vargas; 12) Luis Felipe Duran Mora; 13) Gladys Arciniegas Calvo; 14) Milciades Bonilla; 15) Margarita Tilano; 16) Rusmira Daza Rojas, and 17) Mónica Alicia Bello Tilano, and by four expert witnesses: 1) José Quiroga; 2) Ana Deutsch; 3) Carlos J. López Hurtado, and 4) Elizabeth Silvia Salmon Garate. The Court has also received the testimony of Dom Rizzi. Regarding the evidence provided during the public hearing, the Court received the statements of the presumed victims Alba Yaneth García and Marcos Neite González, as well as of General (rtd.) Jairo García Camargo, witness offered by the State, and expert witness Alejandro Valencia Villa, offered by the Commission. The latter also handed over a written document relating to his expert opinion on June 29, 2012. 37 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia, paras. 91 and 340. 38 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, paras. 69 to 76, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, para. 31. 39 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, para. 76, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, para. 31. ‐ 15 ‐