8 is still a controversy regarding the facts related to the alleged torture suffered by Hugo Ticona Estrada (infra para. 93). 23. Regarding the legal claims, the Tribunal declares that there is no controversy as to the violation of Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, 25 and 1(1) of the American Convention and Article 1 of the IACFDP, to the detriment of Renato Ticona, as well as Articles 5, 8, 25 and 1(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of the next-of-kin of Ticona Estrada, namely: Honoria Estrada de Ticona, César Ticona Olivares, Hugo Ticona, Betzy Ticona and Rodo Ticona. 24. By virtue of the above, the Court shall now turn to the corresponding chapter in order to analyze and precise the violations so established. Moreover, it is worth mentioning that although the State acquiesced to the alleged violation of Article 3 of the American Convention, the Court deems it is appropriate to analyze it in the pertinent section of Chapter VI, in the same way that Articles III and XI of the IACFDP are analyzed in Chapters VI and VIII. 25. Besides, the Court considers that there is still a dispute regarding the alleged violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention to the detriment of Hugo Ticona for the alleged denial of justice; therefore, this aspect shall be analyzed in the corresponding section of Chapter VII. There is also a dispute about the alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention, which shall be examined in another chapter. Lastly, the Court notes that there is still a controversy regarding the determination of the possible reparations; therefore, it shall analyze such aspect in the chapter corresponding to the measures of reparations appropriate for this case, taking into account the arguments of the parties. 26. The Court further considers that the partial acknowledgment of responsibility made by the State is a valuable contribution to the development of these proceedings, to the fulfillment of the judicial functions of the Inter-American system for the protection of human rights, to the effectiveness of the principles underlying the American Convention, and to the conduct to which States are bound in this regard 10, as a result of the commitments undertaken as parties to the international instruments on human rights 11. In turn, it is worth mentioning that in a similar contentious case, already solved by the Court, the State had the same attitude and acknowledged its international responsibility. In this sense, this Tribunal values the attitude of the State for its significance within the framework of the Inter-American system for the protection of human rights. 27. Finally, bearing in mind the powers vested in the Court as an international body for the protection of human rights, it deems it necessary to render judgment adjudicating on the issues of fact and the merits of the case and the effects thereof, as a way of contributing to reparation the damage inflicted upon the next-of-kin of Renato Ticona, to prevent that similar facts may happen again in the future, and in sum, to meet the aims of the Inter-American system for the protection of human 10 Cf. Case of Trujillo Oroza v. Bolivia. Merits. Judgment of January 26, 2000. Series C Nº 64, para. 42; Case of Albán Cornejo et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2007. Series C Nº 171, para. 24; and Case of Kimel v. Argentina, supra note 9, para. 25. 11 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2004. Series C Nº 117, para. 84; Case of Albán Cornejo et al. v. Ecuador, supra note 10, para. 24; and Case of Kimel v. Argentina, supra note 9, para. 25.