proceedings had also been filed against El Universo newspaper constituted a breach of the principle of jurisdiction and legality. • The participation of several temporary judges, mainly in the first instance of the criminal process, violated the principle of jurisdiction. • The reinstatement of the hearing in the appeal phase, which had initially been set for September 22, 2011, and which later, by order of September 17, 2011, notified on the 19th of the same month and year, was again postponed to September 20, 2011, generated a state of defenselessness and violated the defendants’ right to defense, as they had the legitimate expectation that said hearing would be held on the originally scheduled date. • Although the defendants were able to file appeals to challenge the first instance and appeal judgments, as well as challenge judges, the effectiveness of these procedural actions was doubtful, since, as judicial independence was affected in this case, the possibility that these appeals were resolved impartially was also remote. • The authorship of the first instance judgment was questioned, which motivated the victims of the case to file a constitutional action for precautionary measures, in which resolution it was determined that “the judgment of first instance was not created in the computer equipment of the relevant court but came from an external team.” 20. Based on the accepted facts, the State 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 of the same instrument. The State did not acknowledge its international responsibility in relation to Articles 7, 21, 22, and 26 of the American Convention, for which it stated that it would refer to the aforementioned articles in the relevant part of its answering brief. 21. The representatives expressed that the State’s recognition is partial, ambiguous, imprecise and sometimes contradictory. In particular, they expressed that the State, contradictorily, has not recognized the context of the violations within which the facts of this case occurred: the attacks on freedom of expression and the deficiencies of judicial independence. The representatives declared that they do not accept the terms of the acknowledgment of responsibility, which is why the controversy persists. Thus, they stated that the Court must resolve the controversy in the terms proposed by the Commission and the representatives. In this regard, the representatives made various statements related to the existence of the context in which the facts of the case occurred and indicated that the State's request seeks to ensure that a judicial truth is not reached and seeks to strip the judgment of symbolic value. For this reason, they indicated that the Court must exercise its jurisdiction by correcting the ambiguity of state recognition. 22. The Commission assessed positively the partial acknowledgment made by the State. However, it pointed out that the acknowledgment of responsibility has a certain ambiguity, and therefore requires clarification in terms of its scope and legal effects. The Commission referred to the lack of clarity of the State's position regarding whether it agreed with the conclusions of the Merits Report on issues such as the need to analyze the requirements established by the doctrine of actual malice or the legal consequences of some relevant facts that violated judicial guarantees and judicial protection. Similarly, the Commission indicated that, although the State referred to reparations in its brief, it did not specifically identify the scope of its partial acknowledgment in terms of reparations. Finally, it highlighted that the State did not recognize the context in which 10