uncertainty, and the special circumstances they have had to endure over all these years. The Colombian State will not cease to seek the truth and justice in this case. This commitment is not mere rhetoric; the Government is determined to take advantage of this historic opportunity of peacebuilding, learning from the lessons of the past, and building on what has already been created. This acknowledgement of responsibility is an expression of this determination; it seeks to provide a rational and considered response to the claims of the petitioners. This acknowledgement is a result of a thorough and objective analysis of the facts, conducted in a serious and rigorous manner, that never ignored the respect due to the victims. 21. Colombia also made a partial acknowledgement of responsibility in successive communications of October 17, November 10 and December 2, 2013, as well as at the public hearings held in this case on November 12 and 13, 2013. In these interventions, the State partially acknowledged its responsibility with regard to the alleged detentions and torture, the presumed forced disappearances, its obligation to investigate, and some of the violations committed to the detriment of the next of kin of the presumed victims. The State partially acknowledged its international responsibility as follows: 19 a. With regard to the presumed victims of detention and torture and their next of kin: i. By act: owing to the violation of the rights to personal liberty and to humane treatment (Articles 7 and 5 of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument), to the detriment of Yolanda Santodomingo Albericci and Eduardo Matson Ospino. The State indicated that it “acknowledges that these victims were tortured while in the custody of State agents.” ii. Owing to the violation of the right to personal integrity recognized in Article 5(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of the next of kin of Yolanda Santodomingo Albericci and Eduardo Matson Ospino. b. With regard to those who were allegedly forcibly disappeared and their next of kin: i. By act: owing to the forced disappearance of Carlos Augusto Rodríguez Vera and Irma Franco Pineda in violation of Articles 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument. 19 ii. By omission: owing to violation of the obligation to ensure the right to recognition of juridical personality and to humane treatment, recognized in Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Cristina del Pilar Guarín Cortés, David Suspes Celis, Bernardo Beltrán Hernández, Héctor Jaime Beltrán Fuentes, Gloria Stella Lizarazo Figueroa, Luz Mary Portela León, Norma Constanza Esguerra Forero, Lucy Amparo Oviedo Bonilla and Gloria Anzola de Lanao because, owing to “errors committed in processing the scene of the incident and in identifying mortal remains, as well as the unjustified delay in the investigations,” their whereabouts remains unknown. Colombia clarified that this acknowledgement “does not imply that it accepts that the wrongful act of forced disappearance of persons was perpetrated against these nine victims.” iii. By omission: owing to the violation of the rights to personal integrity and to freedom of conscience and religion recognized in Articles 5 and 12 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of the next of kin of Carlos Augusto Rodríguez Vera, Irma Franco Pineda, Cristina del Pilar Guarín Cortés, David Suspes Celis, Bernardo Beltrán Hernández, Héctor Jaime Beltrán Fuentes, Gloria Stella Lizarazo Figueroa, Luz Mary Portela León, Norma Constanza Esguerra Forero, Lucy Amparo Oviedo Bonilla, Gloria Anzola de The Court has summarized the different briefs in which the State made its acknowledgement of responsibility. 10