indicated its “partial acquiescence,” because “the physical and emotional effects of the violations suffered by [Ms. Uscap Ivoy, who is a surviving victim] may have transcended and persisted until the time over which the Court has competence to examine violations by the State”; c) The violation of Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof (Obligation to Respect Rights), to the detriment of the members of the Río Negro community who survived the massacres, as well as to the detriment of the next of kin of the members of the community. The State indicated its “partial acquiescence,” because “the said violation could transcend and persist until the time when the Court had competence to examine [the] violations”; d) The violation of Articles 6 (Freedom from Slavery) and 17 (Rights of the Family) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the following 17 children: Agustín Chen Osorio, Celestina Uscap Ivoy, Cruz Pérez Osorio, Froilan Uscap Ivoy, Jesús Tecú Osorio, José Osorio Osorio, Juan Chen Chen, Juan Chen Osorio, Juan Pérez Osorio, Juan Uscap Ivoy, Juana Chen Osorio, María Eustaquia Uscap Ivoy, Pedro Sic Sánchez, Silveria Lajuj Tum, Tomasa Osorio Chen, Florinda Uscap Ivoy and Juan Burrero. The State indicated its partial acquiescence, “because the said human rights violations could transcend and persist until the Court had competence to examine the violations by the State”; e) The violation of Article 19 (Rights of the Child) of the American Convention to the detriment of “those children who were under 18 years of age when the Court’s competence was ratified”; f) The violation of Articles 12 (Freedom of Conscience and Religion) and 16 (Freedom of Association) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the members of the Río Negro community. The State indicated its “partial acquiescence,” considering that “the said violations could continue over time and fall within the temporal competence” of the Court; g) The violation of Article 22 (Freedom of Movement and Residence) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof. In this regard, the State “partially” acquiesced specifically to the violation of the right to freedom of residence, because “the members of the Río Negro community were relocated to the Pacux settlement” after 1987, the year in which it accepted the Court’s jurisdiction; h) The violation of Articles 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention and to Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Convention against Torture, and to Article 7(b) of the Convention of Belem do Pará, to the detriment of the survivors and next of kin of those who were tortured and extrajudicially executed during the different massacres. The State indicated its “partial acquiescence,” considering that it “had not guaranteed fully the effectiveness of [those] rights […] as regards the investigation of the facts and punishment of those responsible for them, following its acceptance of the competence” of the Court, despite the fact that several investigations had been carried out and some individuals had been sentenced and convicted for the massacres; i) The violation of Articles 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof and to Article I of the Convention on Forced Disappearance, to the detriment of Ramona Lajuj 9