6 30. On February 18, 2005 the President issued an Order in which he accepted the partial withdrawal by the State of the offer to present Manuel José Bonnet Locarno and Harold Bedoya Pizarro as witnesses. He also accepted the State’s proposal to substitute Camilo Osorio Isaza with Gustavo Morales Marín and ordered the latter to appear as a witness at the public hearing on preliminary objections and merits, reparations, and costs that had been summoned (supra para. 25). The President also ordered the State to submit, no later than February 25, 2005, all the information it had regarding the probatory steps ordered on July 30, 2004 by the Specialized Prosecutor of the Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit of the Government Attorney’s Office of Colombia; the steps taken in Mapiripán and in the Guaviare River regarding identification of the alleged victims and the filing of complaints by the townspeople; as well as the steps regarding change of the court for the proceeding and the hearing that was taking place before the Ninth Criminal Court of the Specialized Circuit Bogotá against retired General Jaime Humberto Uscátegui for his alleged participation in the alleged massacre; specifically, information regarding the “methodology and outcome of the steps taken in the Guaviare River and Mapiripán.” 31. On February 23, 2005 the State appointed Dionisio Araujo as its Deputy Agent and Héctor Adolfo Sintura Varela, Sonia Pereira and Margarita Manjarrez as its advisors. 32. On March 4, 2005 the State submitted its comments on the sworn statements submitted by the representatives (supra paras. 25 and 29). 33. On March 4, 2005 the State filed a brief, in which it pointed out that: [...] based on the decisions issued by the domestic judicial and disciplinary authorities and due to the facts that took place in the municipality of Mapiripán between July 15 and 20, 1997, [...] it publicly and explicitly states the following: 1. With regard to the Preliminary objections raised by the State: • It withdraws the first Preliminary Objection regarding undue application of Articles 50 and 51 of the American Convention, and • It ratifies and maintains the second Preliminary Objection regarding nonexhaustion of domestic remedies, filed by the Colombian State. 2. It acknowledges its international responsibility for violation of Articles 4(1), 5(1) and [5](2), and 7 (1) and [7](2) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in connection with the facts that took place in Mapiripán between July 15 and 20, 1997. 3. It reasserts as its State policy that of promoting and protecting human rights and it expresses its deep respect and sympathy for the victims of the facts that took place in Mapiripán between July 15 and 20, 1997, and remembering them it expresses its regret and apologizes to their next of kin and to Colombian society. 4. It asks the […] Court to take this acknowledgment into consideration and give it full legal effect, therefore limiting the hearings on the merits and the subsequent proceeding to the study of reparations and costs, as well as to pleadings on the merits regarding compliance by the State with its treaty commitments in connection with Articles 8(1) and 25.