by the State does not accord with the violations that they and the Commission have alleged and, to the contrary, violates the right to the truth because the said fact that it presents as the grounds for the acknowledgement is not supervening, is not in keeping with the factual framework of the case, and ignores the rights of the victims.187 The representatives argued that this ruling, as well as the notorious errors made by the Prosecutor’s Office in the indictment, “again created a factor that violates Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention to the detriment of the victims”; consequently, because there is only an extraordinary and residual possibility that the Colombian Constitutional Court will revise the amparo rulings, they asked the Court to “examine the merits of the matter in relation to the grave consequences of this action on the treaty-based rights of the victims.” 131. Meanwhile, the Commission argued that the text provided by the State did not constitute even a partial acknowledgement of responsibility. It observed that the State itself had indicated in its answer that it did not acknowledge its responsibility in relation to the claims of the representatives, or with regard to the facts and violations established in its Merits Report, in which it analyzed matters other than those which the State had referred to as “evidentiary shortcomings” in the criminal proceedings in first and second instance that culminated in the guilty verdicts. Thus, it observed that what the State called an acknowledgement constituted, precisely, the support for its dispute concerning the factual and legal framework of the Merits Report. It observed that, to the contrary, during the merits stage of the case before the Commission, the State had indicated that its domestic proceedings, including the criminal proceeding that it is now criticizing, constituted a clear and in-depth investigation of the facts and that these criminal proceedings were conducted in accordance with national and international standards, complying with its obligations as regards the investigation and determination of those responsible, all of which it maintained even after the approval of the Merits Report, at the stage prior to the forwarding of the case to the Court and after the judgment that found a member of the FARC guilty of these facts. In conclusion, the Commission considered that the State’s text should not be analyzed under the legal concept of acknowledgement of international responsibility, but rather in light of the estoppel principle. A.2 Regarding the domestic investigations and proceedings 132. The Commission and the representatives considered that the State had violated the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection recognized in Articles 8188 and 25189 in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention. 133. The Commission observed that criminal proceedings were held in the military criminal, ordinary criminal, disciplinary and contentious administrative jurisdictions. Regarding the investigation by ordinary criminal justice, it observed that, in September 2009, the 12th Criminal Court delivered a first instance judgment against three officers of the Colombian Air Force, the crew of the aircraft that launched the cluster device, considering them the perpetrators of the facts. Despite this, the Commission considered that “the responsibilities had not been fully clarified of those who oversaw the planning and execution of the bombing,” which was carried out with the authorization of senior military commanders. Regarding the disciplinary proceedings, the had investigated and tried the facts of this case; consequently, it had harmed the right to due process of law and the access to justice of the presumed victims, who were unable to intervene in that proceeding, so that they asked the Court to exclude the said ruling of January 31, 2011, from the analysis of the merits of the instant case. 187 The representatives also asked the Court to consider as supervening facts, an application for amparo that presumed victims filed against the said judgment of January 31, 2011, as well as a decision of March 28, 2012, of the Superior Court of the Judicial District of Arauca declaring it admissible, and another decision in second instance of the Supreme Court of Justice revoking this. 188 Article 8(1) of the American Convention establishes: “Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature.” 189 Article 25(1) of the American Convention establishes: “Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties.” ‐ 38 ‐