committed, as a result of the criminal complaint and the opening of the criminal investigation.” It therefore asked the Court to bear in mind that, “while the procedures undertaken by the State in the immediate aftermath of the military operation were inadequate, the situation was corrected […] as a result of a prosecutorial investigation in which the State made every effort to correct the situation as described,” and as a result, the State of Peru should not be found responsible for these violations. 80. The Commission pointed out that the State’s argument was not a preliminary objection, but a recognition of the fact that the procedures taken immediately after the operation were deficient. It was also an attempt to open debate on an argument on the merits during the admissibility stage, concerning whether these procedures had been corrected at a later stage of the process, and whether the investigation protocols had been improved. It asked the Court, therefore, to deny this objection as unfounded. 81. The representatives said that the State’s arguments on the matter were applicable to the merits. It noted, accordingly, that the State had expressly requested that it be declared not responsible for the violations of which it stood accused. It therefore asked the Court to address the matter during the appropriate stage in the proceedings, and to deny this objection. Considerations of the Court 82. The State based its position essentially on the fact that it had conducted a number of actions that, in its view, remedied the alleged shortcomings in the proceedings conducted immediately after the military operation. The State had added that at present, through the Institute of Forensic Medicine and the National Directorate of Criminal Science, it was applying protocols attuned to international standards. It also asked this Court to hold the State not responsible for the violations of which it stands accused. 83. The Court finds that the State’s arguments concerning its later rectification of shortcomings in the initial proceedings, such as working under what it called “current international standards,” fall within the analysis of the merits of the case, and therefore should not be resolved as a preliminary objection. The Court therefore holds that the actions the State claims to have taken to correct the alleged acts of negligence committed in the investigation of the facts that took place on April 22, 1997, may be relevant for the Court’s discussion of the merits of the case and any reparations it may order, but they have no impact on the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction in the instant case. VI PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS 84. The Court will use this chapter to consider the State’s arguments on the “objection for inadmissibility of new facts brought by the representatives of the alleged victims into the process before the Inter-American Court,” and the status of Lucinda Rojas Landa as an alleged victim. A. Alleged inadmissibility of facts Arguments by the State, the Commission, and the representatives 85. The State argued that the Commission had not indicated what facts contained in its Report on the Merits would be submitted to the consideration of the Court, and that the legal consequences of this omission would be to consider that it had submitted the full chapter on proven facts from Report No. 66/11. It deemed, in this regard, that the representatives of the