6 24. In turn, in the brief of requests and arguments, the representative stated that “after [R]eport No. 26/05 was issued […] the State has not even shown a single sign of [its] will to comply with at least one of [the recommendations made by the Commission].” 25. In the Court’s view, the statements made by the State constitute an acknowledgment of international responsibility for the facts and the violations referred to by the Inter-American Commission. The Court will now analyze the legal consequences deriving therefrom. a) Regarding the facts 26. The Court understands that the State has accepted the conclusions of Report 26/05 (supra paras. 19, 22, and 23) and that its failure to raise objections to the facts described by the Commission in the application is construed as an admission that serves as the factual grounds of the case. 27. Therefore, the controversy regarding the facts alleged in the application, which are deemed to be proven as set forth in the following chapters, has ceased. b) Regarding the legal claims 28. In Report No. 26/05, the Commission concluded that the State had violated the rights enshrined in Articles 5(1), 5(2), 8, and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Bueno-Alves. These violations were the ones described by the Commission in its application. 29. The State fully accepted the Commission’s conclusions (supra paras. 8, 19, 20, 22, and 23). 30. The Court considers that the State’s “acceptance” constitutes an acquiescence to the legal claims made by the Commission. Thus, the controversy regarding the violation of Mr. Bueno-Alves’ rights as established in paragraph 6 supra has ceased. 31. On the other hand, the Court notes that, in the answer to the application (supra para. 8), the State categorically reject[ed] the responsibility attributed thereto in the brief [of requests and arguments] for the alleged violation of the right to personal liberty as enshrined in Article 7 of the Convention […]. Likewise, the State deni[ed] the violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 11 and 24 of the American Convention of Human Rights to the detriment of Mr. Bueno-Alves […] and related provisions of the American Declaration of [the] Rights and Duties of Man. 32. Therefore, the Court considers that a controversy still exists with regard to the alleged violation of Mr. Bueno-Alves’ rights as enshrined in Articles 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 11 (Right to Privacy), and 24 (Right to Equal Protection) of the Convention and “related provisions” of the American Declaration. c) Regarding reparations 33. Upon accepting the conclusions of Report No. 26/05, and expressly requesting the Court to “determine the reparations due to […] Mr. Bueno-Alves,” the State acknowledged its duty to repair the violations committed against the alleged victim. The disagreement lies in the type, amount, and beneficiaries of the reparations. Therefore, the Court declares that there is a controversy over these matters.