11. On June 5, 2012, the President issued an Order8, in which he required that the statements of 18 presumed victims, one witness and four expert witnesses proposed by the representatives be received by affidavit; declared inadmissible the expert evidence offered by the State, and required the latter to present certain documentation in keeping with Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure. In addition, in this Order the President convened the parties and the Commission to a public hearing. 12. On June 7, 2012, the State partially appealed the preceding Order with regard to the inadmissibility of the expert evidence offered. After receiving the observations of the representatives and the Commission, the Court issued an Order on June 18, 2012,9 in which it rejected the appeal filed by the State and ratified all aspects of the President’s Order. 13. The public hearing was held on June 27 and 28, 2012, during the Court’s ninety-fifth regular session.10 During the hearing, the statements of two presumed victims offered by the representatives, one witness offered by the State, and one expert witness offered by the Commission and the representatives were received. 14. Furthermore, the Court received an amicus curiae brief from the organization “Coalición contra la vinculación de niños, niñas y jóvenes al conflicto armado en Colombia (COALICO).” 15. On June 27, 2012, the State and the representatives presented their final briefs and the Commission presented its final written observations. Since the State and the representatives presented documents attached to the said briefs, on August 17, 2012, a time frame was granted for the presentation of observations, with the clarification that this did not represent a new procedural opportunity to expand arguments, so that the admissibility of the documentation presented by the parties that had not been requested by the Court or its President, as well as any arguments in this regard, would be decided by the Court at the appropriate opportunity. On August 31, 2012, the representatives and the Commission presented their observations. III PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS A. First preliminary objection: “Lack of competence ratione materiae” A.1. Arguments of the Commission and allegations of the parties 16. The State asked the Court to admit the preliminary objection in relation to the alleged violations of the rights to life, personal integrity, property, and freedom of movement and residence, because these were matters relating to the presumed violation of norms of international humanitarian law. The State underlined that the States Parties to the Convention are subject to the jurisdiction of the Court, whose competence is limited, and only events associated with presumed violations of its norms are subject to international proceedings. Even though other normative may be referred to and other judicial decisions incorporated, these only constitute criteria to assist the interpretation.11 The State indicated that both the general context and the specific context of the 8 Cf. Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia, Order of the President of the Court of June 5, 2012, available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/santodomingo_05_06_12.pdf. 9 Cf. Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia, Order of the Inter-American Court of June 18, 2012, available at http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/santodomingo_18_06_12.pdf. 10 There appeared at this hearing: (a) for the Inter-American Commission: Felipe González, Commissioner, Silvia Serrano Guzmán, Adviser, and Álvaro Botero, Adviser; (b) for the representatives: Rafael Barrios Mendivil, Nicolás Escandón Henao and Jomary Ortegón Osorio, CCAJAR; Tito Augusto Gaitán Crespo and Andrea Lucía Rodríguez Orama, the Asociación Minga; Janet Eliana Zamora González, HVCJ; Alonso Campiño Bedoya and Yilson Javier Torres Rodríguez, the “Joel Sierra” Foundation, and Douglas Cassel and David Stahl, lawyers, and (c) for the State: Rafael Nieto Loaiza and Luz Marina Gil García, Agents; Hernando Herrera Vergara, Ambassador of Colombia to Costa Rica; Assad José Jater Peña, Director of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Jorge Giraldo Rivera, Coordinator, Inter-institutional Operations Group. 11 In this regard, the State argued that the only source of law admitted by the Convention as an element for determining international responsibility is the American Convention, which constitutes the universe under the jurisdiction of the Court. The State added that hearing and analyzing responsibility based on other norms disregards the principle of ‐ 8 ‐