7 iv. “22 of the Convention, [in relation to Article 1(1) thereof,] with regard to the direct nuclear family of Carlos Jaramillo Correa”; and v. “5 of the Convention, [in relation to Article 1(1) thereof], with regard to the direct nuclear family of the victims.” (b) It “partially acknowledged its responsibility for the violation of the right to judicial guarantees and protection embodied in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, with regard to Jesús María Valle Jaramillo, Nelly Valle Jaramillo, Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa, and their respective direct nuclear families, […] considering that judicial proceedings to sanction all the masterminds and perpetrators, discover the truth of what happened, and make reparation to some of the victims who are parties to the administrative proceedings are still underway”; (c) It indicated that “it had not violated the rights to privacy, freedom of expression and thought, and freedom of association referred to in Articles 11, 13, and 16, respectively, of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, as the representatives of the alleged victims [alleged],” and (d) It denied that “the State had fostered an environment of harassment, persecution, or violation of the rights of the human rights defenders or their organizations.” 21. Furthermore, in its answer to the application, the State acknowledged “the facts that took place on February 27, 1998, with regard to Jesús María Valle Jaramillo, Nelly Valle Jaramillo and Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa […].” In addition, the State specified whether or not it accepted as true each paragraph of the chapter on the facts in the application. 22. Regarding reparations, the State affirmed that: It had found significant discrepancies between the claims in the application and those in the brief with pleadings, motions, and evidence […]. Nevertheless, the State indicated that, in good faith, it had carried out several acts of reparation at the domestic level and that it intended to provide satisfaction and compensate the alleged victims and their next of kin in order to repair the damage caused and to guarantee the non-repetition of acts of such significance and impact on society. In this regard, [it] outline[d] other complementary measures of reparation, consistent with the case law of the inter-American system, that could be implemented by the State, should the Court deem them pertinent and order them. 23. During the public hearing held in this case (supra para. 8), and also in its brief with final arguments, the State reiterated its “acknowledgement of international responsibility,” “in the terms of the brief answering the application.” 24. In addition, the State indicated that: There are discrepancies between the scope of the Report prepared by the Inter-American Commission under Article 50 of the American Convention and the scope of the application lodged before the Court. Nevertheless, the State, in good faith, acknowledge[d] its international responsibility in the abovementioned terms for [the violation] of several rights regarding which there is inconsistency between the proceedings before the Commission and the application. […] The State [also indicated] that the acknowledgement of responsibility by omission with regard to Jesús María, Nelly Valle Jaramillo, and Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa’s next of kin […] was made in good faith and in observance of the Court's jurisprudence despite that the victims’