Grijalva Bueno did not receive prior or detailed notification of the charges against him, nor did he have the adequate time and means to prepare his defense. - Accepts that, in the case of Mr. Grijalva Bueno, the principle of presumption of innocence was not ensured and that the military authorities failed in their duty to provide grounds for their decisions. - Accepts that Mr. Grijalva Bueno did not have access to an effective remedy to challenge the decision to dismiss him from the armed forces. - Accepts that, despite a decision by the Court of Constitutional Guarantees ordering Mr. Grijalva Bueno’s reinstatement in the armed forces, this order was not executed and therefore he has not been reinstated and has not received any payment in his favor. 25. The State also acknowledged its international responsibility for the violation of the rights set forth in Articles 8(1), 8(2), 8(2)(b) and 8(2)(c) of the American Convention, and for the violation of the right established in Articles 25(1) and 25(2)(c) of the same instrument, all in relation to Article 1(1), to the detriment of Mr. Grijalva Bueno, in the disciplinary process that concluded with his discharge. It emphasized that its acceptance of the facts and partial acknowledgement of the claims made in the submission of the case is consistent with principle of good faith established in international law. As a result of that acquiescence, the State pointed out that it waived the filing of preliminary objections, as established in Article 42 of the Rules of the Court, in relation to the administrative process of dismissal. 26. At the same time, the State acknowledged its obligation to provide redress to the alleged victim, but disagreed with the measures of reparation requested by the Commission in the submission of the case. It argued that it “has complied with certain actions of domestic reparation in good faith, and maintains [its] intention to satisfy and compensate the victim, to make reparation for the harm caused, and to ensure the non-repetition of such acts.” It requested that any reparations ordered by the Court be granted solely for the facts for which it acknowledged its responsibility and within the standards of international human rights law. 27. Finally, the State asked the Court to accept its acknowledgement by virtue of the partial acquiescence in the terms indicated. 28. On the other hand, the State affirmed that it does not accept the facts that allegedly violate the rights established in the submission, which are related to the investigation and the military criminal proceedings against Mr. Grijalva Bueno, and are described in paragraphs 77 to 86; 87 to 89; 97 to 99; and 102 of Merits Report N° 152/18, considering that the international dispute in the instant case should focus on those facts. Consequently, the State argued that it did not violate the rights to judicial guarantees, judicial protection and to freedom of expression established in Articles 8(1), 8(2), 8(2)(b), 8(2)(c), 8(2)(g), 25(1), and 13(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Grijalva Bueno. Also, regarding the facts linked to the military criminal proceedings against Mr. Grijalva Bueno, it indicated that it would lodge a preliminary objection regarding the Court’s lack of jurisdiction, due to the use of the inter-American human rights system as a fourth instance (supra paras. 16 to 18). 29. The representative appreciated the State’s acknowledgement of international responsibility. However, it pointed out that it was incomplete because the State did not acknowledge: a) the context in which the facts of the case occurred; b) that Mr. Grijalva Bueno had denounced serious human rights violations within the Ecuadorian Navy; c) 8