8 form part of the State’s acquiescence. 30. Based on the foregoing, the Court will proceed to determine who should be considered victims of the violation of the rights embodied in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, and, to this end, will examine the evidence presented in relation to the alleged relationships (infra para. 119). 31. The above notwithstanding, the Court notes that the acknowledgement of State responsibility (supra paras. 17 to 20) is based on facts established in the application, is consequent with the preservation of the right embodied in Articles 8(1) (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25(1) (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, as well as the general obligation to respect and guarantee rights established therein, and does not restrict the fair reparations to which the alleged victims would have a right, but rather defers to the decision that the Court will make. Consequently, the Court decides to accept the acknowledgement made by the State and classify it as an admission of the facts and a partial acquiescence to the legal claims contained in the Commission’s application, and an admission of the arguments made by the representatives. 32. The Court considers that the attitude of the State makes a positive contribution to the development of these proceedings, to the exercise of the inter-American jurisdiction on human rights, to the implementation of the principles that inspire the American Convention, and to the conduct that States are obliged to adopt in this regard,13 owing to the commitments they assume as parties to international human rights instruments. * ** 33. Moreover, the Court notes that, with regard to the facts, the dispute subsists concerning whether this case reflects the situation of those who work for the defense of the environment in Honduras (supra para. 19). The Court also considers that the dispute subsists concerning the facts described in the application concerning the supposed participation of State agents in planning and covering-up the murder of Mrs. KawasFernández. 34. Regarding the legal claims, the Court finds that the dispute between the parties subsists concerning the alleged violation of Articles 4 (Right to Life) and 16 (Freedom of Association) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mrs. Kawas-Fernández; the alleged violation of Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) of the Convention to the detriment of “the next of kin” of Mrs. Kawas-Fernández, and determination of reparations. * ** 35. In consideration of the above, the Court finds that, notwithstanding the admission of facts and the acknowledgement regarding the various claims by the there is still the need to determine the nature and scope of the violations alleged instant case. Therefore, in view of the powers entrusted upon it to protect human 13 partial State, in the rights, Cf. Case of Benavides-Cevallos V. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 19, 1998. Series C No. 38, para. 57; Case of Ticona-Estrada et al. Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 8, para. 26; and Case of Valle-Jaramillo et al. Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 8, para. 46.