recourse to this route to request reparation. The State argued that the reparations that can be granted by this jurisdictional mechanism are in keeping with the criteria developed by this Court in relation to the integral reparation of damage. Consequently, it would be necessary to consider whether it is essential to have recourse to this domestic procedure in order to accede to the Commission and eventually to the contentious competence of the Inter-American Court. 36. In the instant case, in Admissibility Report 25/03 of March 6, 2003, the Commission ruled on the application of the exceptions established in Article 46(2) of the Convention to the criminal proceedings, understanding these as the appropriate remedy, and also to the action for direct reparation before the contentious-administrative jurisdiction, considering that it was not necessary to exhaust this remedy in cases such as this one, because it “is a mechanism intended to supervise the administrative activity of the State and merely permits obtaining compensation for damage caused by abuse of authority.”30 37. In the case of Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia,31 concerning the State’s responsibility for an extrajudicial execution, the Court analyzed whether the contentious-administrative remedies had truly contributed to end impunity and to ensure the non-repetition of harmful acts, considering, in particular, that the decisions taken under this mechanism “can be relevant with regard to the obligation to make integral reparation for a violation of rights.”32 Thus, when examining the merits of that case, the Court emphasized that the contentious-administrative courts did not establish the full scope of State responsibility, even though they were supposed to do so.33 Then, in the chapter on reparations of that case, and considering that an integral and adequate reparation cannot be reduced to the payment of compensation to the victims or their next of kin34 (because, as appropriate, measures of rehabilitation and satisfaction, and guarantees of non-repetition are also necessary), the Court took into account the compensation awarded in the said proceedings, considering that “if national mechanisms exist to determine forms of reparation [that satisfy] criteria of objectivity, reasonableness and effectiveness to make adequate reparation for the violations of the rights that have been declared,” such proceedings and their results “can be assessed.”35 Nevertheless, if these mechanisms do not meet the said criteria, the Court, in exercise of its subsidiary and complementary competence, must order the pertinent reparations.36 38. Based on the foregoing, the Court agrees with the State that the contentious-administrative proceedings may be relevant to qualify and define certain aspects or implications of the State’s responsibility, as well as to settle certain claims in the context of integral reparation. Accordingly, 30 Admissibility Report 25-03. Available at: http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2003sp/Colombia.289.02.htm. Para. 23. 31 Cf. Case of Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, paras. 130, 131, 139 and 140. 32 Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 214; Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, para. 219; Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia, para. 339, and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, para. 206. 33 The Court observes that, in this case, they only established administrative responsibility owing to the failure of State officials to protect the victims, and did not consider the latter’s actions in the execution of this responsibility, even though the partial results of the criminal and disciplinary proceedings were available at that time; therefore, in this regard, they did not make a substantial contribution to compliance with the obligation to investigate and elucidate the facts. The Court considered that, even though it was not incumbent on the said jurisdiction to establish individual responsibilities, when determining the State’s objective responsibility, the jurisdictional authorities should have taken into account all the sources of information available to them and, consequently, they should not only have verified the State’s omissions, but also have determined the real scope of the State’s institutional responsibility. Case of Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, paras. 139 and 140. 34 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 214; Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, para. 219; Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia, para. 339, and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, para. 206. 35 Case of Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, para. 246. 36 In the chapter on Reparations in the case of Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, the Court considered that the next of kin of the victim had access to the contentious-administrative courts and that these courts determined compensation for loss of earnings (pecuniary damage) based on objective and reasonable criteria, which it found “reasonable in the terms of its case law.” Case of Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, para. 246. ‐ 14 ‐