13 conditioned to the evidence presented by the Commission and the petitioners, taking into account that, even when applying the principle of equity, the principles of reasonableness and proportionality limit the State’s possibility of recognizing them to the quantitative and qualitative validation of the amount and how this is calculated.” 63. On September 20, 2005, the State reiterated in writing the acknowledgement of international responsibility made in the answer to the application (supra para. 41) and indicated that the violation of the obligation to respect rights embodied in the Convention “was attributable to it, pursuant to the provisions of international law, owing to the participation in the facts of its agents, which was clearly illegal and outside institutional mandates; however, this acknowledgement did not in any way imply the weighing or assessing of individual responsibilities.” 64. During the public hearing (supra para. 42) the State indicated that: […] Following the regrettable facts that are the grounds for these proceedings, the Colombian judicial and disciplinary authorities initiated investigations, implemented the necessary procedures and have been adopting the corresponding legal decisions. Based on the evidence collected, the authorities have found that the incursions carried out by the so-called United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia in the municipal districts of La Granja and El Aro of the Municipality of Ituango on June 11, 1996, and between October 22 and 26, 1997, respectively, were planned and led by well-known leaders of that illegal armed organization and carried out by men under their supervision, and they also found that State agents took part in some of the criminal acts that occurred in the context of the said raids. It reiterates expressly and publicly the acknowledgement of its responsibility made when answering the application in the instant case [(supra para. 19).] […] It ratifies that this acknowledgement of responsibility does not imply weighing or evaluating individual responsibilities. It requests the Court’s permissions to ask the Commission and the victims’ representatives to inform all the victims and their next of kin of [...] this declaration by the State and, particularly, the following: […] It expresses its respect and consideration for the victims and their next of kin and apologizes for the improper and unlawful conduct of some of its agents in relation to the facts of the instant case. [Emphasis added.] 65. In its brief with final arguments, the State reiterated the acknowledgement of responsibility made in the answer to the application and during the public hearing (supra paras. 19, 63 and 64). Colombia also indicated that “most of the merits of the case are encompassed by the acknowledgement of responsibility, particularly with regard to the participation of State agents in some of the criminal acts that were perpetrated in the context of the incursions of the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia in La Granja and El Aro.” In addition, the State considered: That, in particular, the following legal issues indicated by the Commission and the representatives of the victims were not encompassed by the acknowledgement of responsibility: (i) the existence of an unjustified delay in deciding the domestic recourses; (ii) the violation of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) [thereof] (concerning investigation, sanction and reparation obligations); (iii) the violation of Article 22(1) of the American Convention; (iv) the violation of Article 19 of the [American] Convention, and (v) the measures of reparation. 66. During the said public hearing, and referring to the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility, the Commission stated the following, inter alia: