the representatives and the State. On April 24 and 30, 2013, the representatives11 and the State, respectively, forwarded the observations requested. 14. Observations of the Commission. On April 26, 2013, the Inter-American Commission presented its observations on the annexes to the final written arguments of the representatives. 15. Provisional measures. On May 30, 2013, in an order of the Court, a request for provisional measures filed in favor of Bernardo Vivas Mosquera, Jhon Jairo, Sofía Roa, Elvia Hinestroza Roa, Etilvia Páez, Edwin Orejuela, Sofía Quinto, Ángel Nellys Palacios, Emedelina Palacios, Josefina Mena, Pascual Ávila Moreno and Alicia Mosquera Hurtado was rejected.12 III COMPETENCE 16. The Court is competent to hear this case, pursuant to Article 62(3) of the Convention, because Colombia has been a State Party to the Convention since July 31, 1973, and acknowledged the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on June 21, 1985. Furthermore, Colombia ratified the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture on December 2, 1998. IV PARTIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY A. Declaration by the State and observations of the Commission and of the representatives Declaration by the State 17. The State partially acknowledged its international responsibility in this case, as follows: a) For the violation of the right to judicial guarantees and judicial protection established in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention in relation to the obligation to respect the rights contained in Article 1(1) of this instrument with regard to the members of Marino López Mena’s family “who were duly identified and individualized,” owing to the violation of the reasonable time that, to date, had prevented identifying and punishing the masterminds and perpetrators of the death of Marino López Mena. b) With regard to the victims of forced displacement who are considered as such by the Court, the violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, owing to the unjustified delay in identifying and punishing the masterminds and perpetrators of this displacement, in violation of the reasonable time. c) Since the commencement of the contentious case, it had described the efforts and the progress made by the judicial authorities in order to clarify the facts alleged in this case, indicating the remedies available to the victims to obtain judicial protection; 13 nevertheless, despite the efforts made and the existence of criminal investigations, 14 to 11 Three days after the expiry of the respective time frame, the representatives presented their observations on the documentation forwarded by the State on March 21, 22 and 25, 2013, which was part of the documenttion requested as helpful evidence. 12 Cf. Matter of Ávila Moreno et al. (Case of Operation Genesis). Request for provisional measures with regard to Colombia. Order of the Inter-American Court of May 30, 2013. 13 The State indicated the following judicial remedies: amparo, habeas corpus, group actions, contentiousadministrative action, disciplinary action, and the criminal actions underway. 14 The procedural progress made in the domestic sphere includes: (a) proceedings 2332, 0426 and 1042 under the responsibility of the National Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit of the Prosecutor General’s 8