21. Taking into account the violations recognized by the State, as well as the observations of the representatives and the Commission, the Court finds there is no longer any dispute regarding: a) The violation of José Delfín Acosta Martínez’s right to personal liberty (Article 7(1) of the Convention), in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention. b) The illegality and arbitrariness of the arrest and detention of José Delfín Acosta Martínez (Articles 7(2) and 7(3) of the Convention) in the context of racial discrimination (articles 1(1) and 24 of the Convention), in relation to the duty to adopt domestic legal effects (Article 2 of the Convention). c) The lack of information on the reasons for his detention, to the detriment of José Delfín Acosta Martínez (Article 7(4) of the Convention). d) The circumstances of his death in a police station in violation of the rights to life (Article 4(1) of the Convention) and personal integrity (Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention). e) The violation of the right to humane treatment (Article 5(1) of the Convention), to the detriment of the relatives due to the impacts of the death of José Delfín Acosta Martínez. f) The violation of the rights to judicial guarantees (Article 8 of the Convention) and judicial protection (Article 25(1) of the Convention), to the detriment of the relatives of José Delfín Acosta Martínez: his mother, Blanca Rosa Martínez, and his brother, Ángel Acosta Martínez. B.3. Regarding reparations 22. Lastly, with respect to reparations, this Court must analyze the reparations requested by the Commission and the representatives, as the State did not expressly accept them, although it maintained that it would submit to the measures handed down by the Court. B.4. Assessment of the acknowledgment of responsibility 23. The Court finds that the full acknowledgment of international responsibility makes a positive contribution to the development of these proceedings and the observance of the principles that inspire the Convention, as well as to the victims’ needs for reparation.14 The acknowledgment made by the State has full legal effects pursuant to above-mentioned articles 62 and 64 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, and has significant symbolic value to ensure that similar facts are not repeated. Owing to the comprehensive acknowledgment made by the State, the Court considers that the legal dispute in this case has ceased with regard to the facts, the relevant law, and the need to adopt measures of reparation. 24. In any case, it is necessary to specify the scope of this recognition of responsibility. To start with, because the State had Mr. Acosta Martínez in its custody, it was responsible for his life and integrity. Therefore, this Court finds that the acknowledgment legally means that the death of Mr. Acosta Martínez was not accidental or inadvertent. All of this is Cf. Case of Benavides Cevallos v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 19, 1998. Series C No. 38, para. 57, and Case of Spoltore v. Argentina, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment June 9, 2020. Series C No. 404, para. 44. 14 9