17 88. With regard to the allegation of undue delay in the judicial proceedings, the State replies that the work of the authorities has been diligent and constant in the face of an investigation into highly complex events, and that therefore the investigations do not suffer from undue delay and have been conducted in observance of due process guarantees. 89. With regard to the State's obligation to make available judicial remedies for the reparation of the damage caused, it submits that for the duty to make reparation to exist, a responsibility must have been established. After emphasizing its position that this responsibility does not exist, and there is consequently no right to reparations, the State details the judicial remedies available where the alleged victims could have claimed reparations. 90. The State alleges that the right to reparation must be claimed by those allegedly affected by the violations, and therefore it is not an absolute right. It alleges that there are three intertwined aspects to this right: (i) renouncement, (ii) voluntariness, and (iii) the necessity of a verification process. With respect to the first, the State maintains that if it is possible to forego monetary reparations in international tribunals, it is reasonable to assume that this renunciation is also possible in domestic law. It alleges that the absence of a reparations claim by the petitioners through lodging domestic remedies, apart from representing a failure to exhaust domestic remedies, amounts to a tacit renunciation of this hope before the local courts, as well as before the organs of the Inter-American System. 91. With regard to the second, it alleges that when, for reasons beyond the State's wishes, monetary reparations are not claimed by the victims or beneficiaries - within a time limit determined by the Court - it has been established that the said reparations must be reintegrated into the public treasury. It alleges that if the beneficiaries of the said reparations do not claim them within the time set, they lose the possibility of requesting payment. It similarly maintains that within the proceedings for contentious cases before the Court, if the alleged victims are not included in the IACHR's petition brief, the said persons will not be beneficiaries of any eventual reparations before the Court. It considers that if the alleged victims' willingness is not channeled through the plaintiff - the IACHR - in cases before the Court, these alleged victims are excluded from the possibility of reparations in the international proceedings. 92. With respect to the necessity of a verification procedure, the State alleges that reparation is necessarily a result of judicial proceedings, or exceptionally, administrative proceedings; the product of a trial as to liability, in which the reliability of the events is established, attributing them to a defined actor, and the damages caused. It maintains that reparation is not an automatically executable right, but must be alleged before the competent authorities, in conformity with the legal provisions, and both the harmful event as well as the causal relation between it and the alleged victim must be proved. It alleges that this is the procedure that continues to be included in the Inter-American System. 93. The State alleges that Colombia offers three fora to claim reparations, i.e.: (i) a civil claim within the criminal trial, as a partie civile when it is alleged that the loss of life is the responsibility of third parties and not of State agents; (ii) a reparations motion within the proceedings of Law 975 of 2005 when it is alleged that the offenses were committed by members of illegal self-defense groups; and (iii) a direct compensation claim before the contentious administrative courts when it is alleged that the events are the responsibility of the State. 94. In this respect, the State points out that in proceedings No. 2332, the partie civile claim filed by Emedelia Palacios Palacios' legal representative was admitted. It stresses that by means of this remedy, the victims can not only learn about the state of the investigation, but also actively participate in the proceedings, by presenting allegations of law, or by contributing or requesting evidence, as well as by challenging the decisions taken by the authorities and by requesting reparation for harm caused by a criminal act. Therefore, it alleges that the partie civile has participated in the proceedings with all due guarantees; the State has thereby honored its obligations established in Article 8.1 of the American Convention.