6 acknowledgment of international responsibility made by means of communication of January 28, 2008, as a response to the petition, to apologize to the next- of-kin of Renato Ticona Estrada, beginning with [Hugo Ticona] and represented by the Ombudsman, all of them present at this hearing. Violated rights as from July 22, 1980, date on which Renato Ticona is considered a disappeared person […]. […] In this context, on behalf of the Bolivian State, I apologize for the human rights violations committed against Renato Ticona and the suffering caused to his family and I want you, my dearest brother, Hugo Ticona Estrada, to accept this apology. 15. Without prejudice to the foregoing, the State pointed out in the closing arguments that: […] the legal issues asserted by the Ombudsman and the Commission in the hearing held in the city of Montevideo on August 13 [2008] are not part of the acknowledgment of international responsibility, namely: (i) the human rights violations based on alleged tortures that Hugo Ticona Estrada would [have suffered] and (ii) the duty of the Bolivian State to acknowledge responsibility regarding the facts related to […] tortures that Mr. Hugo Ticona Estrada would have suffered. 16. Finally, as to this aspect, the State further alleged that the arguments expressed by the Ombudsman and the Commission regarding the alleged tortures would jeopardize the principle of legal certainty of the Inter-American system for the protection of human rights, inasmuch as such aspect has not been asserted in the petition filed against the State, therefore the Court would have not subject-matter or ratione temporis jurisdiction to rule over this request. To support this position, the State transcribed the assertions made by the Commission as to the alleged tortures that Hugo Ticona would have suffered; such transcriptions are cited in paragraph 2 and 89 of this Judgment. As a consequence, the State understands that the scope of the acknowledgment of international responsibility as to Hugo Ticona regarding Article 5 of the Convention is limited to subsection 5(1) which provides: “[E]very person has the right to have his physical, mental, and moral integrity respected”. 17. Moreover, the State made it clear that in the brief containing the response to the petition of January 29, 2008 it did not include Article 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) of the Convention in the acquiescence made, inasmuch as it considers there has been important legislative progress as to the issue of forced disappearance of persons. According to the State, the crime of forced disappearance of persons is established by the domestic legislation in the present; several important human rights conventions have been ratified and there is a constitutionality bloc in charge of dealing with international human rights treaties, which is binding. 18. Furthermore, the Commission stated that it positively valued the acceptance of the facts made by the State, insofar as it “constitutes a positive contribution to the development of the proceedings and the enforcement of the principles enshrined in the American Convention", which the Commission later on repeated at the public hearing and in the final written arguments. Nevertheless, in said final written arguments, the Commission pointed out that in the application, it did argue the violation of Article 2 of the American Convention and that, despite the fact that the crime of forced disappearance has been established in the Bolivian Criminal Code, the facts of the instant case happened before such criminal classification; therefore the Commission considers that the State failed to comply with the obligation established in said Article by having not adopted the legislative measures necessary to classify such crime, until the year 2006. Moreover, the Commission specified some