effective remedy for him to challenge that ruling, and e) that the judgment of the Constitutional Court was not executed, and therefore Mr. Grijalva was not reinstated and did not receive any payment. Consequently, the Court considers that the dispute between the parties in relation to those facts has ceased. 34. The State also rejected the alleged violations of rights related to the military investigation and criminal proceedings against Mr. Grijalva Bueno, described in paragraphs 77 to 86; 87 to 89; 97 to 99; and 102 of Merits Report N° 152/18. The Court observes that the aforementioned paragraphs are found in section IV of the Report entitled “Analysis of the Law” and, more specifically, in the legal analysis of the case, where the Commission examined the facts in order to derive the corresponding legal consequences. Therefore, the Court considers that the dispute still exists regarding the facts referred to in the aforementioned paragraphs, as well as those related to the alleged violations of rights in the military criminal proceedings. B.2 Regarding the legal claims 35. Taking into account the violations acknowledged by the State, as well as the observations of the representative and the Commission, the Court considers that the dispute has ceased regarding the violation of Mr. Grijalva Bueno’s rights for: a) not being heard by an impartial authority during the dismissal procedure; b) not receiving prior and detailed notice of the accusation against him, nor the adequate time and means for the preparation of his defense in the dismissal process; c) failure to comply with the principle of presumption of innocence in the dismissal process; d) failure to comply with the duty to give reasons for the decision of dismissal, and e) failure to provide access to an effective remedy to review the decision of dismissal from the armed forces. Finally, despite a ruling of the Court of Constitutional Guarantees (Tribunal de Garantías Constitucionales–TGC) ordering Mr. Grijalva Bueno’s reinstatement in the armed forces, this decision was not executed and therefore he has not been reinstated nor has any payment been made in his favor. Consequently, the State partially acknowledged its international responsibility for the violation of Articles 8(1), 8(2), 8(2)(b) and 8(2)(c) of the American Convention, as well as the violation of the right established in Articles 25(1) and 25(2)(c) of the Convention, all in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument, to the detriment of Mr. Grijalva Bueno, in the disciplinary process that concluded with his dismissal. 36. In light of the foregoing, the dispute continues in relation to the alleged violations of different judicial guarantees in the military criminal proceedings, as well as the right to judicial protection and the right to freedom of thought and expression, established in Articles 8(1), 8(2), 8(2)(b), 8(2)(c), 8(2)(f), 25(1), and 13(1) of the American Convention, all in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument, to the detriment of Mr. Grijalva Bueno. The Court notes that in its answering brief the State mentioned Article 8(2)(g) of the Convention; however, this provision was not referred to by the Commission in the proceedings before this Court, nor are there any arguments on record to support an alleged violation. Therefore, the Court considers that it is not appropriate to rule on the matter in this case. B.3 Regarding the reparations 37. The dispute continues with regard to the appropriateness of the specific measures of reparation requested by the Commission, for which reason it will be the Court’s responsibility to examine them. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the State has 10