and the integral reparation of the harm caused as a result of the events that occurred in the village of Santo Domingo on December 13, 1998. It argued that the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies must be fulfilled by each of the victims considered individually, because the individual is the subject of the inter-American system and the object of the reparation. 28. The State alleged that the structure of internal responsibility is founded on the State’s direct responsibility, which is constituted based on the function and not on the agent that gives rise to this responsibility, so that it is perfectly possible to deduce responsibility for anonymous misdemeanors and unlawful acts, for illegal conduct that can be attributed to the State, or for legal actions that result in a breach of the principle of equality in relation to public functions. It added that, for this reason, Colombian justice, on the one hand, declares the responsibility of the State directly, as a subject of rights and obligations and, on the other, establishes the obligation to make integral reparation for the harm caused. Furthermore, it indicated that it was evident that this form of responsibility is totally autonomous and independent of the responsibility of the agents, against whom independent proceedings must be filed to sanction them and to require the reimbursement of the sums of money that the State has had to assume to compensate the victims. Thus, it indicated that it corresponded to the Council of State to perform the functions of supreme contentious-administrative tribunal, a jurisdiction that is competent to hear actions for direct reparation filed by the victims who seek reparation for unlawful harm caused by the State. 29. In addition to the above, the State described the characteristics and possibilities of the contentious-administrative remedy and argued that, although “the integral reparation of the victims presumes the adoption of much more extensive measures that mere pecuniary compensation or reparation of the harm caused, […] it is also true that, according to the practice and current case law of the Colombian contentious-administrative jurisdiction, which follows the reparation standards indicated by the Inter-American Court, this domestic judicial route is suitable and effective to obtain reparation in contemporary terms [… and] to settle some of the claims made, which include compensation for the harm caused.” Lastly, the State affirmed that, in the instant case, the estoppel principle is not applicable because the objection it is requesting the Court to reconsider was presented expressly and opportunely before the Inter-American Commission, and the latter dealt with it based on an inappropriate assessment. The State argued that, since a legal dispute exists between the State and the Commission, involving the basic aspect of the interpretation of the principle of subsidiarity and the State’s defense, the Court must decide this. 30. The Commission considered that the matter of the exhaustion of domestic remedies was decided opportunely at the corresponding procedural stage and that, in any case, the preliminary objection was inadmissible in substance. In this regard, it argued that the analysis of whether an individual is a victim in a case of this juridical nature is different from whether or not an individual complies with the requirements of admissibility to accede to the inter-American system, In addition, it stated that the issues relating to the identification of the victims included by the State in the grounds for this objection correspond to a matter of merits. It indicated that, in its Admissibility Report, it had ruled on the application of the exceptions established in Article 46(2) of the Convention to the criminal proceedings, understood as the appropriate remedy, as well as on the action for direct reparation before the contentious-administrative jurisdiction, explaining the reasons why it was unnecessary to exhaust the said remedy in cases such as this one. 31. Regarding the argument of the suitability and effectiveness of the contentiousadministrative route to repair the alleged violations in this case, the Commission argued that the action for direct reparation does not constitute a measure to clarify the truth, to obtain justice and to punish those responsible; primordial elements of reparation in cases of human rights violations. It also recalled that it has been the consistent criterion of the Inter-American Commission that, in cases of violations of the rights to life and personal integrity, the appropriate remedy to redress the situation is the investigation and criminal proceedings, which must be opened ex officio and conducted with due diligence. 32. For their part, the representatives added to the arguments presented by the Commission that the State, in exercise of its right to defense, had modified its position in relation to its stance before the Commission, against its own proceedings, by citing case law that establishes that the ‐ 12 ‐