of the facts contained in the Report on the Merits submitted for the consideration of the Court, and therefore, it is not admissible to raise facts other than those described therein, without prejudice to references to facts that explain, clarify, or controvert the facts mentioned in the report, or that address the claims of the applicant (also called “supplementary facts”). The exception to this principle is facts classified as supervening, which may be referred to the Court at any stage of the process before the issuance of the judgment. 23 17. Regarding the State's request to exclude certain facts presented by the representatives, the Court notes that, based on the Report on the Merits submitted by the Commission to the Court, 24 this case involves: (i) the alleged prior threats against Ms. Bedoya, (ii) the facts that occurred on May 25, 2000, and (iii) the investigation of these facts, as well as (iv) the alleged attacks and threats against by Ms. Bedoya after May 25, 2000. Consequently, all the factual questions related to these facts will be included in the analysis of this judgment. This means that (i) the alleged acquiescence of public officials to the violent events that took place in the La Modelo Prison on April 27, 2000 and (ii) the alleged attempted kidnapping of journalist Ignacio Gómez Gómez on May 24, 2000, as well as the subsequent actions of State agents regarding it, may be examined by this Court as contextual elements when addressing the facts of this case. Additionally, the Court observes that the alleged facts highlighted by the representatives regarding the visitor entry, exit, and security protocols for the La Modelo Prison are related to the facts that took place on May 25, 2000 to the detriment of Ms. Bedoya, and therefore they may also be subject to analysis by this Court. 18. Additionally, as regards the State's request to exclude certain of the representatives’ arguments, the Court observes that they pertain to the facts contained in the Report on the Merits 25 and, furthermore, refer to the merits of the matter and to the State’s alleged responsibility for the facts in this case. Consequently, the State's request to exclude these arguments must also be dismissed. V RECOGNITION OF INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY A. Partial recognition by the State, observations of the parties and of the Commission 19. In the public hearing held in the instant case, the State “recognized its international responsibility for the failures of the judicial system, which, by collecting 12 statements from her, failed to conduct a criminal investigation respectful of the victim’s dignity,” asking for “forgiveness from [Ms.] Bedoya for these events and for the damage they caused her”. In addition, it recognized that “these actions violated her rights to personal integrity, judicial guarantees, and judicial protection, in relation to the obligation to guarantee the rights enshrined in the American Convention on Human Rights, as well as the duty of due diligence established in Article 7(b) of the Convention of Belém do Pará ”. 20. The State also acknowledged its international responsibility “for the failure to comply with the duty of due diligence in the investigation of the threats against Jineth Bedoya from the moment the Cf. Case of Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2011. Series C No. 226, para. 32; and Case of Urrutia Laubreaux v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 2020. Series C No. 409, para. 39. 23 24 Cf. Report 150/18, Case 12.954, Jineth Bedoya Lima et al. regarding Colombia, December 7, 2018. See, mutatis mutandi, Case of the "Five Pensioners" v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 155, and Case of V.R.P., V.P.C et al. v. Nicaragua. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 350, para. 55. 25 9