they considered that the State had violated Articles 12 and 16 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the members of the community of Río Negro. 152. As indicated previously in this Judgment (supra para. 17(f)), the State “indicated its partial acknowledgement” of the violation of the rights recognized in Articles 12 and 16 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the members of the community of Río Negro. This was because, according to the State, “the said violations could transcend over time and include the temporal space under [the Court’s] jurisdiction.” C.2. Considerations of the Court 153. Owing to the “partial” acknowledgment of international responsibility made by the State, the Court will now analyze the alleged violations of the personal integrity of the members of the community of Río Negro, derived from the deterioration in their cultural and spiritual life resulting from the impossibility of burying their deceased in accordance with their beliefs, and from the loss of spiritual guides and sacred places, as well as from the destruction of their social and family structures. 154. In this regard, the Court recalls that, in its Article 12, the American Convention establishes the right to freedom of conscience and religion, which, according to this Court’s case law, allows people to maintain, change, profess or disseminate their religion or beliefs. This right is one of the pillars of a democratic society. In its religious dimension, it constitutes a transcendental element for the protection of the convictions of believers and for their way of life.243 155. The American Convention does not explicitly establish the right to “bury the dead.” The Inter-American Court has addressed this issue not as a substantive right, but in the context of the reparations in cases of forced disappearances; mainly, as a result of the violation of another right that is established in the Convention. Thus, for example, the Court has ordered that, if the remains of a disappeared person are found, they must be returned to his or her next of kin, and the State must cover the funeral or burial costs.244 Also, in other cases, the Court has referred to the impossibility of burying the dead as a fact that increases the suffering and anguish of the next of kin, which can be considered in the reparations when determining an amount for the non-pecuniary compensation in their favor.245 156. However, in the instant case, during the public hearing, expert witness Rosalina Tuyuk referred to the importance of the farewell rites for the dead in the Mayan culture: […] there is always a rite of farewell, preparation, appreciation of the people that pass on to the other dimension of life, and this is the part that could not be performed with most of those who were violently murdered, those who were massacred […] and those who were disappeared. In other words, this part is […] like a debt we have […] to give our deceased an honorable burial. 243 Cf. Case of “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo Bustos et al.) v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 5, 2001. Series C No. 73, para. 79. 244 Cf. Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, supra, para. 232, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, supra, para. 291. 245 Cf. Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs, supra, para. 87(a), and Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, supra, paras. 226 and 292. 61