of responsibility. The State at the current stage of the procedure has made reference to its actions before the Commission, but in its arguments on the alleged violations of the right to a reasonable period, it asked that the reasons for the delay in processing the criminal case be taken into account, particularly the reasons involving the complexity of the case and the multiple motions lodged by the defense, as well as organizational issues in the judicial branch and actions by the National Council of the Judiciary. The State also explained the factors behind the breakdown of two criminal trials and reported that, in order to avoid similar breakdown of the third criminal trial, the executive board of the judiciary had ordered the Third Special Criminal Chamber to devote itself to the case on a full-time basis until it was completed. 24. The Court holds, as it has in other cases, 16 that the State’s assumption of international responsibility in the procedure before the Commission produces full legal effect, under the terms of Article 62 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. Therefore, in keeping with its own case law, the Court admits and grants full effect to the recognition of responsibility submitted before the Commission in the instant case. This recognition by the State is partial, referring only to the infringement of the right to a reasonable period in the judicial proceedings before the criminal courts. 25. Moreover, the Court cautions that in the proceedings before this Court, the State’s answering brief included a preliminary objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies, under the terms of Article 46 of the American Convention (infra para. 45). The State questioned in its arguments why, when the Commission conducted its examination of admissibility, it had applied the exception to the rule on exhaustion of domestic remedies given in subparagraph “c” of Article 46(2) of the Convention and found unwarranted delay in processing the case and infringement of the right to a reasonable period. 26. The Court considers that, even though an act of acknowledgment implies, in principle, the acceptance of its jurisdiction, in each case it must determine the nature and scope of any objection filed in order to determine its compatibility with the acknowledgment. 17 The Court finds that the preliminary objection on failure to exhaust domestic remedies in the instant case contradicts the material scope of the partial recognition of responsibility. The Court would note in this regard that the objection filed may not limit, contradict or nullify the content of the recognition of responsibility. 27. The Court therefore holds that, having recognized its responsibility before the Commission on a matter associated with one of the objections to the rule on failure to exhaust domestic remedies, the State may not now shift its position and argue again before the Court that there is no evidence of a failure to adopt domestic remedies, but instead, has implicitly accepted the Court’s full jurisdiction to hear the instant case. 18 28. Thus, in keeping with the provisions of Article 42(6) of its Rules of Procedure, and consistent with Articles 62 and 64 thereof, the Court will examine the preliminary objections lodged in light of the above discussion. Cf. Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 7, 2006. Series C No. 144, paras. 176 to 180, and Case of Tiu Tojin v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2008. Series C No. 190, para. 21. 16 Cf. Case of Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 26. 17 Cf. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of March 7, 2005. Series C No. 122, para. 30. 18