because they arrived after the deadline. On March 29, 2022, the representatives submitted their observations regarding the supporting documentation attached to the State’s final written arguments. 12. Deliberation of the case. – The Court began deliberation of this judgment on June 17, 2022. III JURISDICTION 13. The Inter-American Court has jurisdiction to hear the instant case pursuant to Article 62(3) of the American Convention, as Colombia has been a State Party to the Convention since July 31, 1973, and recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on June 21, 1985. On April 12, 2005, the State deposited the instrument of ratification of the Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons, which entered into force for Colombia 30 days later, pursuant to Article 20 of the treaty. IV PARTIAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY A) The State’s partial acknowledgement of responsibility, and the observations of the representatives and the Commission 14. In its answering brief, the State acknowledged that “until 2019 it failed to diligently investigate the case and identify and, if applicable, punish the individuals responsible for Pedro Julio Movilla’s disappearance.” It pointed out that the drafting of a plan to search for the victim did not get under way until the end of 2020.5 It accepted that the failure to act had violated the right to the truth6 and “caused [the] nuclear family” of the disappeared person to suffer, for which it asked for “the victims’ forgiveness and expresse[d] absolute respect and consideration for them.” It also said it hoped that acknowledging responsibility and offering an apology would help restore part of the trust in the State and its institutions that had been lost. 15. In its answering brief, Colombia also limited its acknowledgment “only to the victims established [...] in the Merits Report.” However, and as explained below (infra Chapter V), in the same document Colombia challenged the inclusion of some of the individuals named in the Merits Report. 16. Moreover, Colombia emphasized that its acknowledgment “refers only to […] the factual framework defined in the Merits Report.” Therefore, in order to “define and specify” this factual framework, it referred the Court to the “Facts” section of its answering brief, in which it “responded” to the facts set forth in paragraphs 23 to 31 of the Merits Report concerning Pedro Movilla’s disappearance and the circumstances prior to the incident. 17. The State acknowledged: a) “pursuant to Articles 8 and 25, in relation to Article 1(1) of the [American] Convention and the obligation to guarantee,” it was “responsible for not having instituted the necessary proceedings early in the criminal investigation, until 2019”; b) an omission, i.e., its lack of due diligence in the investigations, given its obligation to guarantee the rights to recognition of juridical personality, to life, to personal integrity and to personal liberty The State expressly excluded, as grounds for its acknowledgement of responsibility, “(i) the administrative proceedings, and (ii) the disciplinary investigation by the Inspector General’s Office.” It claimed that “the State has no international responsibility” for the actions in question. 6 Nonetheless, the State said its acknowledgment of the violation of the right to truth was only “partial” (infra , footnote 17 and para. 153). 5 6