8 41. The Commission, pointed out (supra paras. 22 and 32) that: a) it “appreciated the acknowledgment of responsibility made by [...] Peru, as a positive step towards the compliance with its international obligations;” b) the State “accepted in whole the facts of the case, including the denial of justice, and therefore, it requested the [...] Court to consider them as proved and to include them in its judgment on the merits, given the importance that the determination of the truth [...] of the facts had for the victims of violations of human rights, for the next of kin and for the Peruvian society as a whole;” and c) such acknowledgment did not make any reference to the international responsibility derived from the violation of Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the Convention, in detriment of the next of kin of the alleged victim. 42 By virtue of the aforesaid, the Commission requested the Court to “admit the acknowledgment of international responsibility made by Peru” and to declare the termination of the controversy “as to the facts and the violations of Article” 4 (Right to Life), Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) and Article 7 (Right to Personal Liberty) of the Convention, as regards Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of the same, in detriment of the alleged victim; as well as the violation of Article 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), Article 25 (Judicial Protection) and Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of the American Convention, in detriment of the next of kin of Bernabé Baldeón-García. As an alternative, the Commission requested that “in case the Court found that an express declaration by the State were necessary, Peru be ordered to set forth clearly its position as regards the violations of Article 5 [(Right to Humane Treatment)] and Article 25 [(Judicial Protection)] of the Convention, in detriment of the next of kin of the alleged victim.” 43. In turn, the representatives stated (supra paras. 23 and 32) their “satisfaction for the acknowledgment by the State of its international responsibility.” However, they pointed out that regarding the alleged violation of Article 8(1) (Right to a Fair Trial) of the Convention, in detriment of the next of kin of Bernabé BaldeónGarcía, the State “limited that acknowledgment up to November 2000.” Furthermore, they pointed out that the State did not address the alleged violations of Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) and Article 25 (Judicial Protection) of the Convention, as regards Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of the same, in detriment of the next of kin of the alleged victim. Lastly, they added that the State “did not either deny or contest the facts stated in the application, and therefore, the said facts should be considered as accepted.” 44. In a communication of October 20, 2005 (supra para. 25), Peru stated, as an answer to the clarification requested by the Court about the scope of the acknowledgment of international responsibility regarding the next of kin (supra para. 20), that it “would reserve the right to address the matters related to the international responsibility of the State derived from the violations of Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) and Article 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention [...], in detriment of the next of kin” of Bernabé Baldeón-García. i. Acknowledgment of the State as regards the facts 45. In view of the acknowledgment of international responsibility made by the State (supra para. 20), the Court considers that there no longer exists a controversy as to the facts alleged in the petition as violations to Article 4 (Right to Life), Article