a) Articles 3, 4(1), 5(1), and 7(1) (rights to juridical personhood, life, personal integrity, and personal liberty), in conjunction with Article 1(1) (obligation to ensure human rights) of the American Convention, as well as Article I(a) of the CIDFP, to the detriment of Óscar Iván Tabares Toro for his forced disappearance; b) Articles 8(1) and 25(1) (rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection), in conjunction with Article 1(1) (obligation to ensure human rights) of the American Convention, as well as Article I(b) of the CIDFP, to the detriment of Óscar Iván Tabares Toro, his mother María Elena Toro Torres, his father Óscar de Jesús Tabares, his stepfather Holmar de Jesús Gallego Márquez, and his siblings María Bibiancy Tabares Toro, Leidy Julieth Gallego Toro, María Isabel Gallego Toro, and Jhon Fredy Tabares Giraldo; and c) Articles 5(1), 11, and 17 (rights to personal integrity, protection of honor and dignity, and protection of the family), in conjunction with Article 1(1) (obligation to ensure human rights) of the American Convention, due to the failure of the State to seek justice and the serious harm the victim’s family suffered as a result, including rootlessness and stigmatization. 28. The Court notes that the acknowledgment of responsibility expressly includes all the violations of the American Convention on Human Rights and the Inter-American Convention on the Forced Disappearance of Persons that were alleged by the Commission, as well as the majority of the violations alleged by the representatives. However, in their pleadings and motions brief, the representatives also alleged the violation of the right to not be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment (Article 5(2)) and the violation of Mr. Tabares Toro’s relatives’ right to the truth 7. Thus, the alleged violation of these rights remains a matter of dispute, and it will be analyzed in the merits of this judgment (infra chapter VII(2)(B)). 29. The representatives, in the public hearing and in their final arguments, and the Commission, in its final observations, belatedly asked the Court to declare the violation of Article 22 of the American Convention (right to freedom of movement and residence), in conjunction with Article 1(1), 8 to the detriment of the family of Mr. Tabares Toro, arguing that the family members had to move on multiple occasions over the years and some had to leave the country. Furthermore, the representatives alleged the violation of Article 19 of the American Convention (rights of the child), to the detriment of Mr. Tabares Toro's sisters due to the impacts of the forced disappearance on them. The representatives also alleged the violation of Article I(d) of the CIDFP, though they offered no specific arguments in support of that claim. B.3. Reparations 30. Bearing in mind the claims of the Commission and the representatives as well as the arguments of the State (in its acknowledgment of responsibility) concerning measures of reparation, the Court notes that the State asked it to order measures that are directly connected to the harm suffered, the violations acknowledged by the State, and the violations the Court considers proven. The State also expressed its intention to implement the measures of reparation in concert with the family of Mr. Tabares Toro (supra para. 19). Accordingly, in the chapter on reparations, the Court will analyze the measures of reparation requested by the Commission and the representatives, without prejudice to the State’s declaration regarding the appropriateness of measures intended to achieve comprehensive reparation. B.4. Conclusions: assessment of the acknowledgment of responsibility 7 On this matter, the Court reiterates that the victims and their representatives can invoke the violation of rights not contained in the Merits Report as long as they fall within the factual framework established by the Commission, as they are the ones who hold all the rights enshrined in the American Convention. Cf. Case of Pacheco Tineo Family v. Bolivia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2013. Series C No. 272, para. 22, and Case of García Rodríguez et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of January 25, 2023. Series C No. 482, para. 35. 8 The Court understands that the State did not include Article 22 of the Convention in its acknowledgment of responsibility because the alleged violation of it is based on assertions related to the facts concerning displacement within Colombia and the recent facts concerning the exile of some of Mr. Tabares Toro’s family members. 7