98 recourse to a competent court in order that it may decide on the lawfulness of such threat, this remedy may not be restricted or abolished. The interested party or another person in his behalf is entitled to seek these remedies. 129. The State has acknowledged its responsibility for the violation of said Articles of the American Convention in connection with the facts of July 1997 (supra paras. 34, 96.29 to 96.47). Nevertheless, in the instant chapter the Court deems it necessary to specify certain points that are closely related to the acknowledgment of international responsibility by the State, as well as to establish whether the State is responsible for the alleged violation of Article 5 of the Convention to the detriment of the next of kin of the victims. a) The victims of the violations of the rights to life, to humane treatment, and to personal liberty. 130. The Court notes that, under the very terms of the acknowledgment of responsibility by the State, “the paramilitary remained in Mapiripán from July 15 to 20, 1997, during which time they impeded free movement of the inhabitants of said municipality and tortured, dismembered, eviscerated and beheaded approximately 49 individuals and threw their remains into the Guaviare River” (supra para. 96.39). 131. In its brief with final pleadings, the State pointed out that it explicitly acknowledged its international responsibility for the violation of said Articles of the Convention, but it specified that it did so “with regard to those who appear [in said brief] as proven victims and likewise with regard to those who prove, in accordance with domestic law, that they are victims.” The State pointed out that the victims identified in the final criminal and disciplinary proceedings are the following: […] Sinaí Blanco, José Roland Valencia and a body identified as N.N. are recognized as victims in Mapiripán; and in the corregimiento of La Cooperativa Antonio María Barrera, Agustín N., Álvaro Tovar Morales, Jaime Pinzón and Raúl Morales are recognized as victims. In the disciplinary proceeding Pacho N.N. and an unidentified male are identified as deceased victims, and Antonio María Barrera Calle, also known as “Catumare”, and Nelson N.N. are listed as kidnapped persons whose whereabouts are still unknown. Alvaro Tovar Morales, Jaime Pinzón, N.N. Morales and Teresa N.N. are recognized as victims in the corregimiento of La Cooperativa. 132. Given the pleadings of the State, the Court must decide who the victims of the violation of said rights are; in other words, whether all the persons executed are victims of the violations of the rights to life, to humane treatment, and to personal liberty. 133. The Court notes that when it made said acknowledgment, the State explicitly accepted that, despite being as yet indeterminate, at least 49 victims were executed or made to disappear. In its brief with final pleadings, the State sought to limit the number of victims to only 12 persons, only 6 of whom are individually identified, which is inconsistent and incompatible with the acknowledgment of responsibility made before this Court. Also, the Court has deemed proven that there were other victims, specifically Gustavo Caicedo Rodríguez, Diego Armando Martínez Contreras, Hugo Fernando Martínez Contreras, Jaime Riaño Colorado, Omar Patiño Vaca, Eliécer Martínez Vaca, Enrique Pinzón López, Jorge Pinzón López, Luis Eduardo Pinzón López, José Alberto Pinzón López, Edwin Morales, Uriel Garzón, Ana Beiba Ramírez