7 The State acknowledges that, during the first stage of the investigations, from 2001 to 2003, irregularities occurred. […] [During] the second stage of the investigations into these three cases, starting in 2004, […] the irregularities were fully rectified, the case files were reconstituted, and the investigations were started up again on a scientific basis, and even with international support for some components. […] The State acknowledges that, owing to said irregularities, the mental integrity and the dignity of the next of kin of Claudia Ivette González, Esmeralda Herrera Monreal and Laura Berenice Ramos Monárrez were affected. Nevertheless, the support provided to the next of kin of each of the three victims in the form of financial resources, medical and psychological assistance and legal advisory services is described in detail, and constitutes reparation of the damage caused. However, the State considers that, in these three cases, it cannot be claimed that it has violated, in any way, the right to life, to humane treatment, to dignity, and to personal liberty of Esmeralda Herrera Monreal, Claudia Ivette González and Laura Berenice Ramos Monárrez. On the one hand, State agents did not take part in any of the three murders and, on the other, the State is presenting extensive information to prove that it has complied fully with its obligations in this regard; particularly the conclusive results of the investigations and the cases resolved from 1993 to date. Similarly, the State has undertaken fully-verified actions to protect and promote the rights of the child; consequently, [the Court] cannot declare that it has violated Article 19 of the American Convention to the detriment of the victims. In brief, the State cannot be declared directly or indirectly responsible for violating the rights to life, to humane treatment and to personal liberty in the case sub judice. 21. In this regard, the State asked that the Court: Take into consideration the State’s partial acknowledgement of responsibility for the failure to comply with the obligations contained in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention [on] Human Rights, and Article 5 of the Convention with regard to the next of kin of Laura Berenice Ramos Monárrez, Claudia Ivette González and Esmeralda Herrera Monreal. Declare that the Mexican State has not violated Articles 4(1), 5(1), 7, 11 and 19 of the American Convention [on] Human Rights with regard to Claudia Ivette González, Esmeralda Herrera Monreal and Laura Berenice Ramos Monárrez. Declare that the State has complied with the obligations of prevention, investigation and reparation established in Articles 4(1) and 5(1) in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention [on] Human Rights. If [the Court] decides that there should be some type of reparation, [it requested] that this should be established based on the limits and considerations indicated by the State […], and also that the Court recognize the efforts made by the Mexican State to make reparation to the victims’ next of kin, even before these proceedings commenced, and the numerous meetings held with them to reach an agreement on additional reparation. 22. The Commission took into consideration the partial acknowledgement of international responsibility made by Mexico, because it considered that this was “a positive step towards compliance with its international obligations.” However, without underestimating the value and importance of this acknowledgement, the Commission noted that it “arose from a different interpretation of the facts to the one set out in the application and in the brief with pleadings, motions and evidence.” It added that “several of the arguments put forward by the State, in the brief answering the application, contradict the facts that are supposedly acknowledged.” Also, it observed that, owing to the terms of this acknowledgement, “the State has not assumed fully the legal implications of the facts, or the pertinence of the reparations requested by the parties.” Consequently, the Commission considered that it was “essential that the Court decide, in a judgment, the issues that remain in dispute.” 23. The representatives requested “that the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility be taken into consideration […] based on its literal meaning,” and that