13 explanation regarding the procedural measures between that date and the beginning of 1998. The State’s silence must be evaluated taking into account that, during the first seven years the procedural measures did not get beyond the investigation stage. Colombia has mentioned the progress that took place since the Human Rights Unit of the Office of the Prosecutor General took charge of the matter. But the issue in question is not what happened in 1998, but rather in the first seven years after the facts occurred. That lapse was more than sufficient for a tribunal to pronounce judgment. By considering this so, the Court follows its previous jurisprudence. In the Genie Lacayo Case, the Court deemed that a period of five years that had elapsed since the time of the order to initiate the proceeding exceeded the limits of reasonableness4. The Court has reiterated this criterion on other occasions5. The State has not provided any convincing explanation to justify the delay in the instant case. 39. Consequently, the Court dismisses this objection. XI FIFTH OBJECTION: LACK OF COMPETENCE OF THE COURT TO ACT AS A TRIAL COURT 40. Colombia also presented as a preliminary objection the argument that this Court does not have competence to act as a trial court for individual facts. In its brief filing objections, the State declared that the Commission had requested that the circumstances of the death of a seventh person, presumably dead in combat, should be established, in order to determine whether his right to life had been violated. Colombia affirmed that this request was beyond the competence of the Court, since the latter could not transform itself into a trial court or a technical police unit to investigate the death of a person, since its function consisted only in “hearing matters related to compliance with commitments entered into by the States Parties to the American Convention.” The State reiterated that this Court does not have competence to examine individual conduct and that its function is limited to being a “Judge of States” and not a “Judge of individuals.” During the hearing, Colombia insisted on the same argument. It affirmed that it did not seek to limit the probative faculty of the Court, but that the evidence should tend merely to prove State responsibility. In this respect, it stated that “the competence of the organs of the American Convention is to establish State responsibilities and not individual responsibilities.” 41. In the instant case, the Commission considered that the State incurs international responsibility for the death of a seventh person and offered evidence to prove this. It is not a question of determining the criminal responsibility of the person who killed that individual, but rather the international responsibility of the State, since the Commission affirmed that this individual was deprived of his life by an agent of the State, that is, by someone whose conduct may be attributed to Colombia. To this end, it is necessary to determine the circumstances in which the seventh victim died and whether an organ of the Colombian State took part in this 4. Genie Lacayo Case. Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C No. 23, para. 81. 5. Suárez Rosero Case. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 73 and Paniagua Morales et al. Case, supra note 3, para. 155.