7 e) the proposal submitted by the State to the Commission aimed to “enhance the role of the Ombudsman’s Office,” to exhaust a constitutional instrument for democratic consolidation and respect for human rights, and to resolve the juridical difficulties for implementation of some of the recommendations included in the Commission’s report, such as the principles of res judicata and non bis in idem, applicable to cases decided under domestic jurisdiction. In this regard, it stated that it did not understand why the Commission did not assess the proposal made by the State, when at other times it “has highlighted the conduct and credibility of the Ombudsman’s Office” in Colombia, as it did in the “Third report on the situation of human rights in Colombia;” f) the first time the Commission referred to the project submitted by Colombia to carry out the recommendations made by the Commission was in the application filed before the court, only in “two lines”2, when it stated: “On January 19, 2001 the State filed its reply to the Commission. On that same date, the Commission decided to file the instant case at the Honorable Court”; g) the Commission has violated due process because it did not assess the proposal made by the State “to implement the recommendations made in Confidential Report 76/00 and therefore it impedes the Court from deciding on this matter due to omission of the procedure set forth in the Convention.” The State also argued that the Commission “did not take into account the good faith of the Colombian Government in waiving the terms set forth in Article 50 of the Convention to transmit the case to the Honorable Court;” h) the exercise of rights contained in the Convention has been restricted and procedural balance has been disrupted; and i) the Court, pursuant to Articles 61(2) and 62(3) of the Convention, is competent to hear any case pertaining to interpretation and application of the provisions of the Convention “and therefore to analyze the procedural prerequisites of the matters subject to its consideration.” Therefore, the issues raised as preliminary objections fall under the competence of and required study by the Court, so as to guarantee due process set forth in the Convention. Arguments of the Commission 25. In connection with the preliminary objection raised by Colombia, the InterAmerican Commission requested that the Court “immediately reaffirm its jurisdiction over the instant case, without opening the oral proceedings or, in accordance with the spirit of its new Rules of Procedure, that it decide in this specific case to address the objection raised by the State together with the merits,” and that it reject the objection to competence raised by the State because it is groundless, “without opening the oral proceedings, and that it continue with the proceedings on the merits or that, given the characteristics of the instant case, it address the issue together with the oral phase on the merits of the case and set it aside when the time comes.” The Commission also stated that: 2 According to the arguments of the State at the public hearing on preliminary objections, held at the seat of the Court on June 11, 2002.