10 51. In turn, upon filing their comments to the answer to the application, the representatives stated that “the State had not denied or contested the facts described in the application, and therefore, the same should be considered as accepted” (supra para. 43). 52. Pursuant to Article 38(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the State has the burden to state, at the moment of filing its answer to the application, whether it denies each of the facts contained in such application or whether it decides to contest the claims made by the parties. 53. As regards the arguments filed by the representatives (supra para. 51), the Court has previously pointed out that, pursuant to the rule of procedure quoted above, the Court has the power to consider as accepted those facts that have not been expressly denied and those claims that have not been expressly contested.3 54. Pursuant to the terms in which the parties expressed their positions, the Court considers that there is a subsisting controversy between them as regards the following: a) the facts related to the alleged violation of Article 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and Article 25 (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, as regards Article 1(1) of the same, in detriment of the next of kin of Bernabé Baldeón-García, from November 2000 (supra paras. 1, 16, 19, 20, 45 and 47); b) The facts related to the alleged violation of Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) of the Convention, as regards Article 1(1) of the same, in detriment of the next of kin (supra paras. 1, 16, 19, 20, 45, and 47); c) Whether the facts accepted as violation of Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) of the Convention, in detriment of Bernabé Baldeón-García (supra para. 45) constitute torture; and furthermore, the alleged violation by the State of Articles 2 and 3 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture, these latter alleged only by the representatives (supra para. 19); and d) All matters related to the determination of the reparations and legal costs (supra paras.1, 16, 19 and 48). * * * 55. The Court considers that the acknowledgment by the State constitutes a positive contribution to the development of this proceeding and the enforcement of the principles consecrated by the American Convention.4 3 Cf. Case of Acosta-Calderón. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 37; and Case of Caesar. Judgment of March 11, 2005. Series C No. 123, para. 38. 4 Cf. Case of Gutiérrez-Soler. Judgment of September 12, 2005. Series C No. 132, para. 59; Case of Huilca-Tecse, supra note 2, para. 84; and Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. Judgment of November 22, 2004. Series C No. 117, para. 84.