23 administrative activities, designed to obtain compensation for damages resulting from an abuse of authority. In general, this procedure alone is not an adequate mechanism to repair cases of human rights violations, so that is does not need to be exhausted in a case such as this one when there is another mechanism to achieve the reparation of the damage and the required prosecution and sanctions”; and (h) There has been an unjustified delay in the criminal investigation of the facts. The representatives’ arguments 102. Regarding the preliminary objection filed by the State, the representatives indicated that: (a) The preliminary objection “is groundless” and, therefore, the Court should reject it; (b) The State had presented a preliminary objection and an acknowledgement of responsibility simultaneously, acquiescing to several of the claims in the Commission’s application, which “constituted a subsequent waiver of objections”; (c) “The appropriateness of the remedies stems from their ability to result in the effective integral reparation of the alleged violations[.] Integral reparation is understood to mean the identification, prosecution and sanction of those responsible, and also the reparations intended to guarantee that similar facts will not recur and that the damage caused is compensated”; (d) The “purpose of the criminal proceedings in the domestic sphere is to identify, prosecute and punish those responsible, and also to re-establish the rights and to compensate the damage caused.” Consequently, this remedy was the one that “the [alleged] victims and their next of kin should exhaust to obtain the protection of their rights in the terms of the Convention”; (e) The determination of the responsibility of public officials by means of disciplinary proceedings “is merely aimed at assessing that their actions correspond to the norms regulating the performance of their public functions.” During the disciplinary proceedings, there is no “possibility of suing all those responsible, but merely individuals in their capacity as public officials.” Additionally, “the disciplinary investigation does not provide access to the [alleged] victims and their next of kin.” Consequently, the disciplinary proceeding does not have “the scope of punishment in the terms of the Convention”; (f) The financial compensation available as the result of administrative proceedings “cannot be understood as integral reparation in the terms of the Convention, [because] it only covers the financial aspect, and disregards the re-establishment of the rights through the determination of the truth and the identification, prosecution and punishment of those responsible”; and (g) When the El Aro and La Granja cases were submitted to the interAmerican system, “the investigations undertaken as a result of the facts had