7 23. On November 11, 1999, Colombia submitted its rebuttal to the Court. There it argued that the new statements that the Commission added in its reply brief are not in response to the State’s reply to the original application and are intended to reformulate the petitions set out in chapter X of the application. For the State, therefore, the original pleadings will continue to dictate the subject matter of the dispute. It added that it was unclear why a single mechanism had to be found within the internal system in order to satisfy the exigencies of the inter-American system for the protection of human rights. Quite the contrary, when faced with a possible violation, States should order all necessary measures to set in motion the proper mechanisms to ensure the observance of the rights under discussion and make any reparation it may owe. It also pointed out that in 1994, in another case separate from the one sub judice, Colombia’s Constitutional Court recognized the plaintiffs’ right to have recourse to the military criminal justice system. It also noted that in the proceedings that the military criminal justice system has underway petitions to become civil parties to the case have been granted. Finally, it added that the Commission’s analyses and conclusions with respect to Hernán Lizcano Jacanamejoy and NN/Moisés are helpful to the State authorities. 24. On February 4, 2000, the Court delivered its judgment on the preliminary objections entered by the respondent State.2 25. On April 23, 2001, the President decided to summon the parties to a public hearing, which would be held at the seat of the Court on May 28, 2001, to hear the parties’ witnesses and experts. 26. The public hearing was held at the seat of the Court on the date planned. There appeared: For the Republic of Colombia: Marcela Briceño-Donn, agent; and Héctor Adolfo Sintura Varela, alternate agent. For the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights: Robert K. Goldman, delegate; Verónica Gómez, advisor; Viviana Krsticevic, assistant; Luz Marina Monzón Cifuentes, assistant; Carlos Rodríguez Mejía, assistant; and Roxana Altholz, assistant. The witnesses and experts tendered by the parties also appeared. 2 In its Judgment on the preliminary objections, the Court decided to admit the second and third preliminary objections entered by Colombia (supra, note 1) and thus resolved that the Commission and the Court did not have competence to determine whether a given act was in violation of the 1949 Geneva Conventions or other treaties other than the American Convention. On the other hand, it dismissed the objections entered with respect to violation of due process, failure to exhaust domestic remedies and the lack of competence of the Court to act as a trial court for individual facts. See: Las Palmeras Case, Preliminary Objctions. Judgmentt of February 4, 2000. Series C. No. 67.