6. The State asserted that the Commission’s affirmations were not in keeping with the reality. In particular, it indicated that, to counter the FARC’s unlawful activities, a military operation was planned and executed as of December 12, 1998; that, when a situation of tactical disadvantage and risk for the safety of the soldiers arose, on the morning of the following day an aerial attack with an AN-MIA2 device was planned and ordered in the place where the guerilla were concentrated in an area with dense vegetation known as “mata de monte” [woodland bushes] which is more than 500 meters from the village of Santo Domingo. In other words, it alleged that the Colombian Air Force did not launch any bomb in the urban center of Santo Domingo and that the deaths that occurred were caused by a bomb installed by the FARC guerrilla in a truck in the main street of the village, acts and damage that cannot be attributed to the State, which complied fully with its obligations to protect the civilian population. In addition, it argued that the looting was carried out by members of the FARC who remained in the village after December 13, 1998. It argued that it had not violated the right to the truth by not investigating the masterminds, because a final criminal judgment exists in which a member of the FARC has been convicted of the facts. The State also proposed an “acknowledgment of responsibility” for the violation of the right to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection of the victims and their next of kin, because, owing to flaws in the evidence that was presented during the criminal proceedings in first and second instance against the pilots of the [Colombian Air Force] aircraft, […] the right of the victims to accede to the truth and an investigation with the guarantees [contained] in Colombian law was violated.” II PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 7. The submission of the case by the Commission was notified to the State and to the representatives on September 19, 2011. 8. On November 21, 2011, the representatives5 presented their brief with pleadings, motions and evidence (hereinafter “pleadings and motions brief”), in keeping with Articles 25 and 40 of the Rules of Procedure. 9. On March 9, 2012, the State submitted to the Court its brief filing preliminary objections,6 answering the submission of the case and with observations on the pleadings and motions (hereinafter “answer” or “answering brief”). Initially, the State appointed Eduardo Montealegre Lynnet as Agent and Rafael Prieto Sanjuán as Deputy Agent7 and, subsequently, as of June 15, 2012, it appointed Rafael Nieto Loaiza and Luz Marina Gil as Agents for this case. 10. On May 22 and 23, 2012, the representatives and the Commission, respectively, presented their observations on the preliminary objections and the text that the State referred to as “partial acknowledgement of responsibility.” 5 In a communication of September 10, 2011, in response to a request for clarification sent by the Secretariat on the instructions of the President, the “José Alvear Restrepo” Lawyers’ Group; Humanidad Vigente Corporación Jurídica; the “Joel Sierra” Human Rights Foundation, the Asociación para la Promoción Social Alternativa (Minga) and the lawyers Douglass Cassel, David Stahl and Lisa Meyer stated that they represented the presumed victims. They indicated that, on July 3, 2011, they had provided the Inter-American Commission with 90 powers of attorney, of which 11 corresponded to “persons injured in the bombardment” and 79 to next of kin of the presumed victims, “taking into account that the survivors were victims of forced displacement and, in some cases, it has not been possible to locate their current place of residence.” In addition, at that time, they provided four additional powers of attorney of next of kin (merits file, tome 1, folio 81). 6 The preliminary objections filed by the State are “lack of competence” of the Court ratione materiae and “failure to exhaust domestic remedies” with regard to some of the presumed victims. 7 On March 6, 2012 the State advised that Eduardo Montealegre Lynnet would act as its sole Agent. On March 28, 2012, the State advised that Mr. Montealegre Lynnet was unable to continue acting as Agent in this case, because he would be assuming the post of Prosecutor General; it therefore appointed Luz Marina Gil and Jorge Alberto Giraldo Rivera as agents. ‐ 7 ‐