B. The State 17. The State argues that domestic proceedings were carried out regarding the death of Gustavo Villamizar before the military criminal, disciplinary, and contentious-administrative jurisdictions. The allege that as regards the military criminal jurisdiction, on March 1, 2000, the Superior Military Tribunal ruled on appeal to affirm the judgment of the “Rebeíz Prieto” Mechanized Group No. 18, of November 19, 1999, and that said decision became res judicata and put an end to the proceeding. In terms of the disciplinary jurisdiction, the State confirms what petitioners indicated regarding the termination of the procedure ordered September 27, 2000, by the Office of the Delegate Procurator for Human Rights (Procuraduría Delegada Disciplinaria para la Defensa de los Derechos Humanos). As regards the contentiousadministrative jurisdiction, the State indicates that the Ministry of Defense, by resolutions 00689 of July 20, 1999, and 2126 of December 29, 1999, made the payment of damages ordered by the ContentiousAdministrative Court of Arauca on February 11, 1999. 18. As for the admissibility requirements of the petition, the State alleges that it is inadmissible insofar as the facts that are the subject matter of the claim do not tend to establish violations of the rights enshrined in the American Convention. It further alleges that the facts have been judged in the domestic procedures and that a pronouncement by the Commission declaring the admissibility of the petition would be tantamount to the Commission sitting as a court of fourth instance. 19. First, as regards the alleged violation of Article 25 of the American Convention, the State argues that the military criminal courts did have jurisdiction to take cognizance of the facts that are the subject matter of the claim before the Commission, in keeping with the standards of the inter-American human rights system. The State alleges that as the Inter-American Court of Human Rights indicated, “the military courts [do] not per se violate the Convention,”10 from which one can conclude that the “mere fact that the military criminal justice system heard the matter of the homicide of Mr. Giraldo Villamizar does not constitute an automatic violation of the American Convention.”11 10 The State makes reference to I/A Court H.R., Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua Case. Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C No. 30, para. 91. Note DDH.GOI No. 23826/1221 of the Bureau of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law, Ministry of Foreign Relations of the Republic of Colombia, June 1, 2009. 11 The State makes reference to I/A Court H.R., Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua Case. Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C No. 30, para. 84. Note DDH.GOI No. 7