9 Based on the evidence supplied to the Court, the conclusion drawn from all these facts is that the State failed to comply with its duty to ensure the victims and their next of kin proper protection under the law and their right to an effective recourse, as they were left completely defenseless against the action of State agents. 30. On November 2, 2001, the State submitted its brief of final arguments. Its conclusions are as follows The Government of Colombia is asking the Honorable Court to adjudge and declare that: a. The right to life, recognized in Article 4 of the American Convention on Human Rights, was not violated to the detriment of HERNÁN LIZCANO JACANAMEJOY; b. Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights were not violated in the case of the seven persons included in the instant case and their next of kin; c. It accepts the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility for violation of Article 4 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, in the deaths of HERNÁN JAVIER CUARÁN MUCHAVISOY, ARTEMIO PANTOJA ORDÓÑEZ, JULIO MELCÍADES CERÓN GÓMEZ, WILIAN HAMILTON and EDEBRAES NORBERTO CERÓN ROJAS and NN MOISÉS OJEDA; and d. It support the action of the Colombian judicial authorities charged with investigating and prosecuting the responsible parties since, despite the many difficulties and the complexity of the internal situation, their conduct has been helpful in the instant case. V PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATION 31. In its rebuttal brief, at the public hearing and in its final written arguments, Colombia objected to the fact that in the Commission’s reply, it altered some of the terms of the petitum as drafted in the original application. In its judgment of September 10, 1993, in the Aloeboetoe et al. Case, Reparations, the Court wrote that “in proceedings before an international court a party may modify its application, provided that the other party has the procedural opportunity to state its views on the subject.”3 The Court will apply that case law in the instant case. Therefore, provided the other party has had the procedural opportunity to state its views, it will regard the latest arguments made as the definitive pleadings. VI VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 4 RIGHT TO LIFE 32. The Commission is asking the Court to adjudge and declare that Colombia has violated the right to life recognized in Article 4 of the Convention, to the detriment, firstly, of five persons it identifies by name: Artemio Pantoja Ordóñez, Hernán Javier Cuarán Muchavisoy, Julio Milciades Cerón Gómez, Edebraes Norverto Cerón Rojas and Wilian Hamilton Cerón Rojas. Among the documents that the Commission adds to the body of evidence with the Court is a copy of an April 15, 1993 judgment of the Nariño Administrative Law Court that found Colombia to be liable in the deaths of Artemio Pantoja Ordóñez and 3 Aloeboetoe et al. Case, Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of September 10, 1993. Series C No. 15, paragraph 81.