3 the facts described by the Commission in its application, the representatives asked the Court to declare that the State had violated the articles alleged by the Commission, and additionally, alleged that the following rights had been violated: the right to personal liberty (in relation to the alleged prolonged detention of the victims that preceded the massacre); the right to the truth (for which they invoked the rights alleged by the Commission and added Article 13(1) (Freedom of Thought and Expression) of the Convention); and noncompliance with Article 2 of the American Convention in relation to Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention (due to several characteristics of the normative framework established for paramilitary demobilization in Colombia (infra para. 185)). In addition, they argued that the State had violated Article 4 (Right to Life) of the American Convention, in relation to the obligation established in Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) thereof, to the detriment of the three alleged victims who survived. Finally, they requested certain measures of reparation and the reimbursement of the costs and expenses incurred in processing the case at the domestic and international levels. 5. The State submitted its brief in response to the application and its observations with regard to the brief containing pleadings and motions (hereinafter “State’s reply brief”), in which it partially acknowledged the facts, and partially acquiesced to some of the violations alleged by the Commission and the representatives. The scope and content of the State’s acknowledgement and acquiescence will be determined in the corresponding section (infra para. 8 to 54). Furthermore, the State asked that the Court declare that it “has complied with the obligation to make integral reparation.” The State also “reaffirmed its interest in reaching a friendly settlement” with regard to reparations. II JURISDICTION 6. The Court has jurisdiction over this case, pursuant to Articles 62 and 63(1) of the Convention, given that Colombia has been a State Party to the American Convention since July 31, 1973, and recognized the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on June 21, 1985. III PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 7. The application was served upon the State4 and the representatives on May 5, 2006. During the proceedings before this Tribunal, in addition to the principal briefs submitted by the parties (supra para. 1 to 5), the President of the Court5 (hereinafter “the President”) ordered the admission of the testimony, given before a notary public (affidavit), of some of the next of kin of the alleged victims as well as the expert reports of several experts proposed by the Commission, the representatives and the State. The parties were given the opportunity to submit their respective observations with regard to this testimony. In 4 When the application was served upon the State, the State was informed of its right to designate an ad hoc judge to participate in the hearing of the case. On May 9, 2006, the State designated Juan Carlos Esguerra Portocarrero as ad hoc judge. On November 28, 2006, ad hoc Judge Juan Carlos Esguerra Portocarrero submitted a communication to the Court in which he “recused himself before [the President of the Tribunal] as ad hoc Judge in the case of the “Massacre of La Rochela” and gave his reasons for his recusal. In a letter of December 1, 2006, Mr. Esguerra Portocarrero and the parties were informed that the abovementioned communication had been submitted to the President of the Court who, in consultation with the other Judges of the Tribunal, decided to accept the recusal of the ad hoc Judge, taking into account Articles 19 of Rules of Procedure and Statute of the Court, and in light of the reasons expressed by Mr. Esguerra Portocarrero for his recusal. 5 Order of the President of the Inter-American Court on December 22, 2006.