24 not made significant progress, despite the time that had elapsed and there was no justification for [these delays].” “Subsequent progress in the investigations does not influence the assessment of the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies.” The Court’s findings 103. In the instant case, the State has acknowledged its international responsibility for violation of Articles 4 (Right to Life), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 7 (Right to Personal Liberty) and 21 (Right to Property) of the American Convention with regard to the persons indicated in the application (supra paras. 19, 59, 63 and 64). 104. By acknowledging its responsibility in this case, the State has implicitly accepted the Court’s full jurisdiction to hear the case;23 thus, Colombia has tacitly waived the preliminary objection it had filed. Moreover, the content of that objection is closely related to the merits of the case, particularly with regard to the alleged violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. Therefore, this preliminary objection must be rejected and the Court will rule on the arguments of the parties in this respect in the chapters on merits of this judgment (infra paras. 283 and ff.). VII EVIDENCE 105. Before examining the evidence received, the Court will make some observations in light of the provisions of Article 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure, which are applicable to the specific case, most of which have been developed in its case law. 106. The adversary principle, which respects the right of the parties to defend themselves, applies to matters pertaining to evidence. This principle is embodied in Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure, as regards the time at which the evidence should be submitted to ensure equality between the parties.24 107. According to the Court’s practice, at the commencement of each procedural stage, the parties must indicate the evidence they will offer at the first opportunity they are given to communicate with the Court in writing. Moreover, in exercise of the discretional powers included in Article 45 of its Rules of Procedure, the Court or its President may request the parties to provide additional probative elements as helpful evidence; and this shall not provide a new opportunity for expanding or completing the arguments or offering fresh evidence, unless the Court expressly permits it.25 23 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 8, paras. 247 and 252. 23 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”. Preliminary objections and acknowledgement of responsibility. Judgment of March 7, 2005. Series C No. 122, para. 30. 24 Cf. Case of Baldeón García, supra note 5, para. 60; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community, supra note 9, para. 30; and Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al., supra note 12, para. 183. 25 Cf. Case of Baldeón García, supra note 5, para. 61; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community, supra note 9, para. 31; and Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al., supra note 12, para. 184.