33. Based on the above, the Court considers that is not appropriate to rule in a preliminary manner on the Commission’s evaluation in relation to two aspects of the factual determination in the Merits Report (supra para. 27), because this analysis corresponds to the merits of the case. Consequently, the Court rejects the preliminary objection filed by the State. V PRIOR CONSIDERATIONS 34. In this chapter, the Court will rule on arguments put forward by the State in its answering brief affirming that there was a “failure by the Commission failed to comply with the basic requirements for submitting the case to the Court” and a “failure to comply with the regulatory requirements regarding the brief with pleadings, motions and evidence,” because “it contains numerous facts and claims that bear no relationship to or cannot be included within the factual framework established by the Commission in its presentation of the case to the […] Court.” 35. The Court will now analyze the State’s arguments that were not decided during the processing of the case24 and that require analysis prior to considerations of the merits of the case and the eventual reparations. The Court will make prior considerations on: (A) the alleged failure to comply with basic requirements for the Commission to submit the case to the Court, and B) the factual framework of this case. A) Alleged failure to comply with basic requirements for submission of the case to the Court by the Commission Arguments of the State and observations of the Inter-American Commission and the representative 36. The State argued that the Inter-American Commission had failed to comply with the provisions of subparagraphs (c) and (d) of Article 35(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. Colombia further affirmed that the Commission had failed to comply with the said Article 35(1)(c) because the reasons why it submitted the case to the Court were “improperly motivated,” given that it did not take into consideration the State’s continuing efforts to comply with recommendations 4,25 526 and 627 of Merits Report No. 136/10. The State asked 24 The arguments of the State on the “failure to comply with the requirements indicated in Article 35(1)(f)“ of the Rules of Procedure, objecting to the expert opinions proposed by the Commission were considered by the President of the Court in the Order he issued on January 25, 2012. Cf. Case of Vélez Restrepo and Family v. Colombia. Order of the President of January 25, 2012, Considering paragraphs 9 to 16. Also, Colombia’s arguments about the failure to comply with Article 35(1)(d) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, because there were problems with the file of the proceedings before the Commission such as illegible and repeated documents, were answered in a note of the Secretariat (infra para. 65); the Court therefore reiterates that it will assess these documents at the appropriate procedural moment. 25 Regarding the recommendation related to the “adopt[ion] of the measures necessary to protect and safeguard the security of the Vélez Román family if they decide to return to Colombia on a temporary or permanent basis,“ the State asserted that it had asked the Commission that compliance with this recommendation “be suspended until“ the petitioners indicate their interest in returning to Colombia; but the Commission had not ruled on this request and had not indicated any grounds to assess that the State had failed to comply with this commitment. 26 Regarding the recommendation to “continue adopting and strengthening special programs to protect journalists at risk and to investigate crimes against them,“ the State argued that it had provided the Commission with evidence of its “programs to protect journalists“ and “the juridical and legal framework“ supporting them, which confirmed its commitment to comply with this recommendation. The State indicated that this recommendation required “compliance over time,” and provided information that “proved that […] it [had] 14