8 PARTIAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY A. Scope of the acknowledgment 19. In its response to the petition, the State argued that “taking into consideration the principle of institutional continuity, it recognizes that it violated the human rights of […] Ms. María Claudia García Iruretagoyena de Gelman and Ms. María Macarena de Gelman García during the de [f]acto government’s rule in Uruguay between June 1973 and February 1985.” Subsequently, the State informed the Tribunal “it recognizes Mr. Juan Gelman as a victim in the proceedings” (supra para. 11). 20. During the hearing, the State reiterated that its responsibility in this case was already explicitly acknowledged by a domestic regulation, Law 18.596, dated September 18, 2009 concerning “the State Illegitimacy Action between June 13, 1968 and February 28, 1985 – Acknowledgment and Reparation to the Victims,”8 whose terms establish the acknowledgment. Responding to questions from the judges during the hearing regarding whether the act of acknowledgment included all the provisions of the Convention alleged to have been violated, the State agent argued that “in principle, the scope of the State’s acknowledgment encompasses all of the norms of the Convention.” 21. In its final allegations, the State pointed out, referring to the scope of its acknowledgment, that it “should be framed according to the regulatory system of the Republic, which, naturally, is integrated with domestic and international law” and that said act “is limited to a period of time wherein a de facto government ruled in Uruguay.” That is, the State maintains that when claims alleging human rights violations are filed, “the situation is necessarily associated with that period in time […] although there are some exceptions given that some matters are still pending,” emphasizing, in this respect, regarding whether its acknowledgment means the facts are proven, and that the same is framed within the provisions of Articles 1 and 2 of the abovementioned Law No. 18.596 and that the report of the Commission for Peace “contains a detailed and chronological analysis of the acknowledged facts.”                                                          8 Law Nº 18.596 of September 18, 2009: “CHAPTER I: RECONGNITION ON BEHALF OF THE STATE. Article 1 – It recognizes the violation of the rule of law that prevented individuals from exercising their fundamental rights, in violation of human rights or international humanitarian norms, during the period between June 27, 1973 to February 28, 1985. Article 2 – It acknowledges the responsibility of the Uruguan government in carrying out the systematic practice of torture, forced disappearances and arbitrary imprisonment/illegal detention, murders, aniquilación de personas en su integridad psicofísica, political exile or social banishment, in the period between June 13, 1968 to June 26, 1973, marked by the systematic application of the Prompt Security Measures and inspired by the ideological framework of the National Security Doctrine. Article 3 – It recognizes the right to full reparation to all persons who, by act or omission of the State, are defined under Articles 4 and 5 of this Act. Such reparations shall become effective – when appropriate – with adequate measures of restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction measures, and guarantees of non-repetition.