8 representatives only alleged the violation of the right to humane treatment embodied in Article 5 of the Convention in relation to Jesús María Valle’s next of kin. 25. Referring to its acknowledgement of responsibility in its brief with final arguments, the State indicated that: Colombia understands that its obligation to investigate […] persists, [and thus,] because the State continues trying to identify those responsible, in keeping with this obligation it has acknowledged its responsibility for partial omission […]. However, in the course of the investigations conducted to date, no evidence has been provided to prove the responsibility of any State agent and, consequently, [the State] has acknowledged [its] international responsibility [only] by omission in relation to the reprehensible facts that occurred on February 27, 1998, and to the processing of the criminal investigations and consequent violations. […] In this case, the State of Colombia has indicated that the deplorable facts of the murder of Jesús María Valle Jaramillo, the deprivation of his liberty and that of Nelly Valle Jaramillo and Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa, the violation of the right to humane treatment of all of these, and the consequences of the situation of displacement on Carlos Fernando Jaramillo and his nuclear family, and on the next of kin of the other victims, occurred because the State failed to comply with the obligation to guarantee rights. Furthermore, the consequences of some shortcomings on the investigations and judicial proceedings, opened in compliance with the State’s obligation to investigate, which corresponds to the right of the victims and their next of kin to know what happened, also occurred due to omissions in complying with its duty to guarantee rights. […] [During the public hearing,] the State expressed its willingness to apologize to the victims and their next of kin […]; this derives from its acknowledgement of the deplorable facts of the case. Since this was not possible, at this time the State wishes to indicate the following: Nelly Valle Jaramillo, Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa, and members of your direct nuclear families: the State of Colombia apologizes to you […] because you were the victims of the reprehensible events [of February 27, 1998,] that severely harmed your life and your personal development and had a significant impact on your possibility of enjoying optimal living conditions. Consequently, the State […] expresses its solidarity and indicates that, even though all the harm you suffered cannot be eliminated entirely, it will do everything within its power to assist you and do whatever, as a State, it should do to make integral reparation for the omissions of State agents and for the harm caused to you by the facts of this case […]. The State of Colombia regrets profoundly the violation of the rights of Jesús María Valle Jaramillo to personal liberty, humane treatment, life, and judicial guarantees and protection, in relation to the general obligation to guarantee the rights established in the American Convention […], due to the omission of some of its agents and acknowledges to you, the next of kin, the responsibility that it bears for omission in relation to the above facts. Similarly, it deeply regrets what happened to Nelly Valle Jaramillo and Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa due to the violation of their personal liberty and personal integrity and, regarding the latter and his direct family, for the violation of their right to freedom of movement and residence. [In addition,] the State acknowledges the violation of the rights of Nelly Valle Jaramillo and Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa, and their respective direct nuclear families, to humane treatment and to judicial guarantees and protection, and apologizes for this also. The State of Colombia hopes that this apology will help mitigate the vacuum left and the pain caused to the victims and their next of kin by the tragic loss of Jesús María Valle Jaramillo and the violation of the said rights, and sincerely undertakes to maintain the measures it has been adopting and those decided by the Court in order to avoid a recurrence of such painful events […]. Evidently, the apology made by the State in this brief in no way precludes carrying out a public act of acknowledgement with the participation of the corresponding authorities, […] if the Court so decides […]. 26. In its observations on the State's partial acknowledgment of responsibility, as well as during the public hearing and in its brief with final arguments, the Commission took “note of