93. In this regard, the Court observes that neither the Commission nor the representative presented specific, autonomous arguments or facts that occurred during the processing of the claim for compensation under the administrative jurisdiction that could result in violations of due process and judicial guarantees. Consequently, the international responsibility of the State for the violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention to the detriment of Jorge Fernando Grande has not been proved. VII OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS 94. Therefore, THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS DECLARES: Unanimously that: 1. It admits the first preliminary objection, pursuant to paragraphs 36 to 40 and of this judgment. 2. It admits the second preliminary objection, pursuant to paragraphs 44 to 61 of this judgment. 3. It is not incumbent on the Court to rule on the third preliminary objection pursuant to paragraphs 65 to 68 of this judgment. 4. It has not been proved that the State violated the rights to judicial guarantees and protection established in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, pursuant to paragraphs 91 to 93 of this judgment. AND DECIDES: Unanimously 1. To close the file. Done, at Bogotá, Colombia, on August 31, 2011, in the Spanish and English languages, the Spanish text being authentic. Diego García-Sayán President Manuel E. Ventura Robles Margarette May Macaulay 23