-8iii. it disregards the arguments of the representatives with regard to finding certain facts to be violations of the obligation to ensure children’s rights and the right to residence and movement; iv. it establishes limits regarding a number of State agents who, according to the State, acted individually and outside State policies; c) there is a fundamental contradiction in acknowledging responsibility regarding certain rights and maintaining a preliminary objection, and therefore said contradiction should be deemed a consequence of the tacit waiver by the State of its right to raise the preliminary objections; d) they asked that the proceedings stage continue in a broad manner addressing both the factual and legal issues and reparations; e) the stage regarding exhaustion of domestic remedies already ended before the Commission; f) if the Court considers said objection it would have to study the state of the investigation in February 2001; g) the Commission’s decision on admissibility is in accordance with this purpose and with the jurisprudence of the Court; h) the investigations in the instant case have had shortcomings from the start. In this regard, during the preliminary investigation, no forensic evidence was gathered, no witnesses were interviewed, no victims were identified, and those responsible were not captured. Furthermore, some defense attorneys and witnesses have been threatened; and i) domestic remedies continue to be ineffective and partial. In this regard, during the eight years of investigation, the State has only punished six individuals among the hundreds involved in the crime, including military and civilians. 23. During said public hearing, when it exercised its right to a rejoinder and in response to questions by the Judges, the State expressed that: a) it appreciated and recognized the autonomy of the Court to assess the legal effects of the acknowledgment of responsibility by the State, and it ratified the request made in its statement, regarding those legal effects; b) there is no contradiction between ratification of the second Preliminary Objection and the acknowledgment of responsibility, as the Court has full competence to hear all matters pertaining to the case, including the process regarding admissibility that took place before the Commission; c) it ratified the factual and legal reasons stated in the reply to the application regarding the Preliminary Objection; d) at the time when the Commission decided to submit the case to the Court, pursuant to Article 44 of its rules of Procedure, all the proceedings were already being heard by regular justice and various interim acts had taken