7 VII FIRST PRELIMINARY OBJECTION: VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS 25. In its first preliminary objection, Colombia affirmed that the Commission failed to provide complete information on the current status of the case under domestic law in the application, which constitutes a violation of due process. The Commission’s fundamental omission consisted in not having stated in the application that the domestic case had passed from the military criminal jurisdiction to the Human Rights Unit of the Office of the Prosecutor General. Colombia deemed that this change of jurisdiction was a “new and transcendental” fact. As the main piece of evidence, the State submitted the note that it had sent to the Executive Secretary of the Commission on May 22, 1998, setting forth this circumstance. The State considered that the Commission had the obligation to include information on the existing circumstances of the case under domestic proceedings in the application and that this omission constituted a serious fact that affected procedural fairness and its status before the Court. Colombia declared that this situation impeded the Court from hearing the case and pronouncing judgment on it. In another part of its brief filing objections, it stated that there was an “error that could not be corrected,” since the statutory time limit for correcting the application had already passed. Due to the foregoing, the State requested that the file should be returned to the Commission so that the latter could issue a final report pursuant to the provisions of the Convention. At the hearing, Colombia requested that the Court declare that the application was inadmissible due to the serious omission of information by the Commission. 26. The Commission stated that the application presented to the Court on July 6, 1998, was prepared on the basis of the facts set out in Report No. 10/98, which had been approved on February 20, 1998. Consequently, the facts invoked by Colombia had not been included in the application. Likewise, the Commission indicated that, according to the Rules of Procedure of the Court, the proceeding is held with the presence of both parties and each party has the opportunity to exercise its right to defense. Therefore, an omission by the Commission could not affect Colombia’s procedural rights, and it requested that the objection filed should be dismissed. 27. As the Commission indicates, the proceeding before this Court is held in the presence of both parties. Moreover, this Court pronounces judgment in accordance with what each party has alleged and proved. Consequently, the circumstance that the plaintiff failed to mention specific facts does not impede the defendant from alleging and presenting the corresponding evidence. This Court does not understand how the Commission’s conduct has affected Colombia’s right to due process; it considers that the objection filed lacks grounds and therefore dismisses it. VIII THIRD PRELIMINARY OBJECTION: LACK OF COMPETENCE OF THE COURT