the State did not recognize its international responsibility. The Court reiterates that the victims and their representative, as holders of all of the rights established in the American Convention, may assert the violation of rights other than those included in the Merits Report, provided that they are within the factual framework defined by the Commission.9 Therefore, the alleged violation of Article 2 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles I and II of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons, wiil be analyzed in the chapter on the merits of this Judgment (infra para. 81). 23. With respect to the other legal claims, the Court finds that the controversy no longer exists. B.3 Regarding reparations 24. The Court notes that the recognition of responsibility made by the State encompasses the claims contained in the brief of submission of the case to the Court and that these include requests on reparations. The State also submitted to the Court the provisions adopted by the national authorities as guarantees of non-repetition and requested that the ruling on the relevant measures of reparation be governed by the applicable inter-American standards. 25. In view of the foregoing, there is no longer a controversy on the need to grant measures of reparation. The Court must now decide on exactly what measures should be adopted and on their scope in response to the requests of the Commission and the representative. B.4 Evaluation of the scope of the recognition of responsibility 26. The Court, as it has in other cases,10 appreciates the State’s recognition of international responsibility, which is a positive contribution to the development of this process, to the validity of the principles that the Convention inspires and to satisfying the need to repair the victims of the human rights violations. The recognition of international responsibility produces full legal effects in accordance with Articles 62 and 64 of the Rules and has a high symbolic significance in relation to the non-repetition of similar events and in view of the time elapsed since the disappearance of Mr. Garzón Guzmán. The Court, therefore, finds that there is no longer a dispute on the facts, on the law and on the need to adopt measures of reparation. Nonetheless, in view of the violations recognized by the State and the requests of the representative and of the Commission, the Court finds it necessary to deliver a judgment in which it will determine the facts according to the evidence gathered during the proceedings and in light of the State’s recognition of international responsibility. The above will contribute to the reparation of the victims, avoid the repetition of similar events and satisfy, in short, the purposes of the inter-American jurisdiction.11 The Court also deems it necessary to analyze the scope of the State’s international responsibility for the violation of rights set out in the American Convention on Human Rights and the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. The Court will also rule on the corresponding reparations. 27. Finally, the Court notes that the representative alleged the violation of Article 2 of the Cf. Case of the Pacheco Tineo Family v. Bolivia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2013. Series C No. 272, para. 22 and Case of Moya Solís v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 3, 2021. Series C No. 425, para. 32. 9 Cf. Case of Benavides Cevallos v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 19, 1998. Series C No. 38, para. 57 and Case of Guerrero, Molina et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra, para. 31. 10 Cf. Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2008. Series C No. 190, para. 26 and Case of Guerrero, Molina et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra, para. 33. 11 7