6 Colombia has been a State Party to the American Convention since July 31, 1973 and it recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on June 21, 1985. VI PRELIMINARY OBJECTION 23. The State filed a preliminary objection for “violation of due process by omitting steps taken in good faith to best comply with the aims of the American Convention on Human Rights.” Colombia argued that the Court should reject the application in limine in the instant case because: The Honorable Inter-American Commission on Human Rights […] omitted, before filing the application to the Honorable Inter-American Court of Human Rights […], preclusion of the procedure set forth in Article 50 of the Convention. Said omission disrupts procedural balance and affects the situation of the Colombian State vis-à-vis the Honorable Court, insofar as the instruments granted by the Commission to the State to best comply with the aims of [the] American Convention on Human Rights [...], were set aside, with no evaluation to determine the scope of the intention of the Colombian State to comply with the recommendations of Report 76/00. Arguments of the State 24. In its brief on preliminary objections, the State requested that the Court reject the application filed by the Commission in limine and return the file to the Commission for it to reinstate the proceedings, “until all procedural actions by both parties are exhausted.” With respect to the filing of this preliminary objection, Colombia stated that: a) in its Report No. 76/00 the Commission granted the State two-months time to comply with the recommendations made. The report was notified to the State on October 24, 2000 and, upon a request made by Colombia, the Commission granted it an extension until January 19, 2001; b) on January 19, 2001 the State filed before the Commission “a project with which it planned to address the requirements of Confidential Report 76/00.” However, that same day the Commission decided to file the case before the Court; c) the extension having been granted by the Commission, and the State having complied with the new term, the Commission was under the obligation of carrying out in good faith the aims of the Convention and of assessing the proposal submitted by the State. Colombia also deemed that the Commission should “examine the validity and seriousness of the proposal as a mechanism to safeguard human rights;” d) the proposal submitted to the Commission contains “an explicit commitment, in good faith, to address the recommendations” of Confidential Report 76/00. Regarding preparation of the aforementioned proposal, the State explained that, in light of the juridical obstacles posed by domestic law and with the aim of complying with the Commission’s reports, the Ombudsman’s Office was asked to prepare a Special Report to seek compliance with the recommendations of the Commission, within the legal framework in force in Colombia;