13 although to different degrees, that the State’s responsibility in this case should also be declared based on the “acts” of State agents, the Court finds that a dispute still subsists regarding the legal claims put forward in this case, which will be examined in the corresponding chapters of this judgment. 37. In addition, the State disputed the violations alleged by the representatives relating to the rights established in Articles 11, 13, 16, and 17 of the Convention; hence, the Court finds that a dispute subsists in this regard. In light of the facts that the State has acknowledged to be true, as well as those that the Court considers proved based on the evidence presented in the instant case, the Court will examine the pertinent arguments in the corresponding chapters. * * * 38. Regarding the identification of the victims, the Court observes that the State “in good faith and respecting the Court’s jurisprudence,” identified the following individuals as “injured parties”: Jesús María Valle Jaramillo for the violation of the rights embodied in Articles 4(1) (Right to Life), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 7(1) and 7(2) (Right to Personal Liberty), 8(1) (Judicial Guarantees), and 25(1) (Right to Judicial Protection), all in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention, and the next of kin of Jesús María Valle Jaramillo: María Leticia Valle Jaramillo (sister), Ligia Valle Jaramillo (sister), Luzmila Valle Jaramillo (sister), Magdalena Valle Jaramillo (sister), Romelia Valle Jaramillo (sister), Marina Valle Jaramillo (sister, deceased) (and as beneficiaries Mauricio Alberto Herrera Valle, Claudia Helena Herrera Valle, and Liliana María Herrera Valle), Darío Valle Jaramillo (brother), and Octavio Valle Jaramillo (brother) (and as beneficiaries Juan Guillermo Valle Noreña, John Jairo Valle Noreña, Berta Lucía Valle Noreña, and Luz Adriana Valle Noreña), for the violation of the rights embodied in Articles 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 8(1) (Judicial Guarantees), and 25(1) (Right to Judicial Protection), in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention[;] […] […] Nelly Valle Jaramillo, for the violation of the rights embodied in Articles 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 7(1) and 7(2) (Right to Personal Liberty), 8(1) (Judicial Guarantees) and 25(1) (Judicial Protection), in relation to the general obligation (1(1)) and her direct nuclear family: Alfonso Montoya Restrepo (husband) and Luis Fernando Montoya Valle (son) for the violation of the rights embodied in Articles 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 8(1) (Judicial Guarantees) and 25(1) (Judicial Protection) in relation to the general obligation (1(1)[;] […] […] Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa, for the violation of the rights embodied in Articles 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 7(1) and 7(2) (Right to Personal Liberty), 8(1) (Judicial Guarantees), and 25(1) (Right to Judicial Protection) in relation to the general obligation (1(1)) and his next of kin for the violation of Articles 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 8(1) (Judicial Guarantees) and 25(1) (Right to Judicial Protection), Gloria Lucía Correa (wife), Carlos Enrique Jaramillo Correa (son), María Lucía Jaramillo Correa (daughter), Ana Carolina Jaramillo Correa (daughter), Jesús Emilio Jaramillo Barrera (father), Adela Correa de Jaramillo (mother), Blanca Lucía Jaramillo Correa (sister), Romelia Jaramillo Correa (sister), Nellyda Jaramillo Correa (sister), José María Jaramillo Correa (brother) (and as beneficiaries: Juliana Jaramillo Tobón and Santiago Jaramillo Tobón), Luís Eugenio Jaramillo Correa (brother), Gloria Elena Jaramillo Correa (sister) and Adriana María Jaramillo Correa (sister)[, and] […] regarding Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa and his direct nuclear family for the violation of Article 22 (Freedom of Movement and Residence) in relation to the general obligation to respect rights (Article 1(1)), Gloria Lucía Correa (wife), Carlos Enrique Jaramillo Correa (son) and María Lucía Jaramillo Correa (daughter). […] However, in relation to the cousins and nephews and nieces of the direct victims, the State, in keeping with the Court’s jurisprudence, has determined that their status must be