dispute has ceased with respect to the violation of the rights of Emilio Palacio Urrutia, Carlos Nicolás Pérez Lapentti , César Enrique Pérez Barriga and Carlos Eduardo Pérez Barriga for: a) the criminal sanction imposed, and the civil compensation ordered in the criminal proceedings against them as a result of the publication of the article “NO to lies” on February 6, 2011, which constituted a violation of their rights to freedom of thought and expression and to the principle of legality, and b) the actions by the State during the criminal proceeding, which constituted a violation of the alleged victims’ rights to their judicial guarantees and judicial protection. The Court notes that the State also recognized that the ambiguity and scope of the articles of the Criminal Code applied in the case constituted a breach of the principle of legality, which allowed the prosecution of the alleged victims under the criminal code for serious slanderous insult against public authorities. 27. Consequently, the State partially acknowledged its international responsibility for the violation of Articles 8(1), 8(2)(c), 8(2)(f), 9, 13 and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. Given the foregoing, the controversy remains regarding the alleged violations of the rights to personal liberty, property, movement, and work, recognized in articles 7, 21, 22 and 26 of the American Convention, in relation to article 1(1) of the same instrument. B.3 Regarding reparations 28. The controversy remains regarding the admissibility of the specific measures of reparation requested by the Commission and the representatives, therefore it will be up to the Court to examine them. B.4 Assessment of acknowledgement 29. The acknowledgment made by the State constitutes a partial acceptance of the facts and a partial acknowledgment of the alleged violations. This Court considers that the acknowledgment of international responsibility constitutes a positive contribution to the development of this process and to the validity of the principles that inspire the Convention, as well as to the reparation needs of the alleged victims. 25 The acknowledgment made by the State produces full legal effects in accordance with Articles 62 and 64 of the aforementioned Rules of Procedure of the Court. Additionally, the Court warns that the acknowledgment of detailed and specific facts and violations may have effects and consequences in the analysis that this Court makes of the other alleged facts and violations, to the extent that they all form part of the same set of circumstances. 26 30. In the particular circumstances of this case, the Court will specify the scope of the effects of the acknowledgment of responsibility in the determination of the facts and the substantive examination of the alleged rights violations. As long as the controversies about them persist, the Court considers it appropriate to issue a judgment in which the facts that occurred are determined, according to the evidence collected during the process before this Court and the acceptance of facts, as well as their legal consequences and the corresponding reparations. In addition, in this case it is relevant to analyze the facts related to the violation Cf. Case of Benavides Cevallos v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 19, 1998. Series C No. 38, par. 57, and Case of Garzón Guzmán et al. v. Ecuador, supra, par. 26. 25 26 Cf. Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (The Disappeared from the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 14, 2014. Series C No. 287, par. 27, and Case of Bedoya Lima et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 26, 2021. Series C No. 431, par. 30. 12