5 PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COURT 14. The Commission designated Mr. Robert K. Goldman and Mr. Carlos Ayalo Cora as delegates and Mrs. Verónica Gómez and Mr. David Padilla as advisors. The Commission accredited Mrs. Luz Marina Monzón and Mr. Gustavo Gallón and Carlos Rodríguez as assistants and petitioners, and Mr. Pablo Saavedra Alessandri and Ms. Viviana Krsticevic as assistants. 15. On July 14, 1998, after the President of the Court (hereinafter “the President”) had completed a preliminary review of the application, the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”) transmitted said application and its appendices to the State and informed it of the time periods it had for filing its brief answering the application, for filing preliminary objections and for designating its Agent in the proceeding before the Court. 16. On August 14, 1998, Colombia designated Mrs. Marcela Briceño-Donn as agent, and Mr. Héctor Adolfo Sintura Varela as alternate agent. 17. On September 14, 1998, Colombia filed five preliminary objections.1 On September 21, 1998, the Secretariat sent the Inter-American Commission a copy of the document in which the State sets out its preliminary objections. The Commission filed its response on November 5, 1998. 18. On December 11, 1998, the President invited Colombia to designate a judge ad hoc, inasmuch as Judge Carlos Vicente de Roux Rengifo, who was a Colombian national, had excused himself in the present case, pursuant to Article 19 of the Court’s Statute and Article 19 of its Rules of Procedure. 19. On December 15, 1998, Colombia filed its brief answering the Commission’s application. In its answer, the State expressly acknowledged its responsibility for the violation of Article 4 of the Convention, by virtue of the killing of Hernán Javier Cuarán Muchavisoy, Artemio Pantoja Ordóñez, Julio Milciades Cerón Gómez, Wilian Hamilton Cerón Rojas and Edebraes Norverto Cerón Rojas. It further stated that it was not acknowledging responsibility in the death of the other two persons, NN/Moisés and Hernán Lizcano Jacanamejoy. It referenced the various legal proceedings instituted into the events in question: disciplinary, administrative, military criminal justice, and ordinary criminal justice. In the case of the military criminal proceedings, it stated that during the initial phase of the investigation, there were difficulties with evidence gathering; but it also argued that a proceeding under the military justice system is not, per se, a violation of human rights. When examining the amount of time that had passed since the events under investigation had occurred, one had to consider the complexity of the case, the procedural activity of the interested party and the conduct of the judicial authorities. The State acknowledged that there were irregularities in the investigation, but argued that those irregularities should not be cause to throw out any and all proceedings conducted thereafter. It argued that the victims’ next of kin were not denied access to an “effective recourse,” adding that the case is underway in the ordinary criminal justice system and investigations are being conducted into the circumstances under 1 The five preliminary objections that Colombia filed were: violation of due process for failure to complete information; lack of competence of the Inter-American Commission to apply international humanitarian law and other treaties; the lack of competence of the Inter-American Court to apply international humanitarian law and other international treaties; failure to exhaust domestic remedies, and lack of competence of the Court to act as a trial court.