10 29. Bearing in mind the information provided by the parties (supra paras. 20 to 27) and based on its own case law, the Court decides to accept the State’s partial acknowledgement of responsibility and consider it a partial acceptance of the facts and a partial acquiescence to the legal claims and the claims for reparation contained in the Commission’s application, as well as a partial acceptance of the claims made by the representatives. * * * 30. The Court finds that the dispute has ceased in relation to those facts described in paragraphs 34, 35, 37 to 43, 45 to 49, and 51 to 62 of the application, with the exception of the following clarifications mentioned by the State, which remain in dispute: (a) Regarding paragraph 38,6 the State acknowledged that on “July 10, 1997, Jesús María Valle [Jaramillo] denounced in the media the joint action of troops attached to the Fourth Brigade and paramilitary groups [and that, in] response, an action for defamation and slander was filed at the request of members of the Army.” However, it “question[ed] the testimony of Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa […] affirming that ‘the Governor of Antioquia at the time had stated publicly that ‘Dr. Valle would appear to be an enemy of the Armed Forces,’ because this is not corroborated by any other evidence attached to the application”; (b) Regarding paragraph 53,7 the State indicated that, although it had “acknowledged its responsibility in the proceedings before the Court [in the case of the Ituango Massacres,] it has not been proved [in the instant case] that State agents took part in the grave facts of the extrajudicial execution of Jesús María Valle Jaramillo or the other violations of which he was a victim together with his sister, Nelly Valle Jaramillo, and Carlos Fernando Jaramillo, or that State agents sponsored or promoted them”; (c) regarding paragraph 56,8 the State did not accept as true that some of the “known leaders of the [United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (hereinafter ‘AUC’)]” were in “daily contact with the press or with State authorities”; 6 Paragraph 38 of the application states: “On July 10, 1997, Jesús María Valle Jaramillo denounced in the media the joint action of troops attached to the Fourth Brigade and paramilitary groups. In response, an action for defamation was filed at the request of members of the Army. Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa’s testimony states that, in this context, the Governor of Antioquia at the time declared publicly that ‘Dr. Valle would appear to be an enemy of the Armed Forces.’” 7 Paragraph 53 of the application indicates: “In brief, on February 27, 1998, Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa, Nelly Valle, and Jesús María Valle were held hostage by armed men, and the latter was killed in a state of total defenselessness. The available probative elements indicate that the motive for the murder was to silence the accusations of the human rights defender Jesús María Valle regarding the crimes perpetrated in the Municipality of Ituango by paramilitary groups in connivance with members of the Armed Forces, events for which the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights has declared the State’s international responsibility.” 8 Paragraph 56 of the application indicates: “Even though the ten individuals implicated were called in for questioning, three of them (Carlos Castaño Gil and two civilians eventually convicted as perpetrators of the offenses) never appeared before the authorities, and the order for their arrest was never executed; consequently, the investigation and trial were carried out in the absence of the accused. In this regard, the Commission notes, as it has in the past, that in cases of known AUC leaders implicated in proceedings concerning the perpetration of serious offenses, arrest warrants were not executed despite the daily contact of those persons with the press and, on occasion, with authorities of the State itself.”