f) Articles 5, 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention and Articles I a), I d) and XIV (obligation to inform the Inter-American Commission in the event of an alleged forced disappearance) of the IACFDP, to the detriment of Pedro Movilla’s relatives, regarding the alleged “right to search for and locate disappeared persons.” g) Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the treaty, to the detriment of the relatives of Pedro Movilla not included in the acknowledgement of responsibility for the violation of the provisions in question (supra paras. 15 and 32). B.3 The reparations 36. The Court notes that, since the State has declared its commitment to “contributing to the comprehensive reparation of the victims” (supra para. 18), the State's obligation to adopt reparation measures in this case is no longer in dispute, inasmuch as it has acknowledged its responsibility. 37. Furthermore, the State has expressly stated its commitment and readiness to continue the investigations and search for Pedro Movilla, and to undertake certain measures of satisfaction (supra para. 18), so the appropriateness of such measures is no longer in dispute. Still in dispute are the other reparation measures requested by the Commission and the representatives, notwithstanding the State’s acceptance of the admissibility of measures to achieve comprehensive reparation. B.4 Conclusions: assessment of the partial acknowledgement of responsibility 38. The Court emphasizes that the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility is partial, inasmuch as it does not cover all the facts of the case and alleged human rights violations, and refers only to some of the persons identified by the Commission and the representatives as victims. The acknowledgment applies only to shortcomings in the internal investigations. Among the alleged human rights violations not acknowledged by the State is the characterization of what happened to Pedro Movilla as an act of forced disappearance for which the State of Colombia is directly responsible. 39. Nonetheless, as in previous cases,18 the Court holds that the acknowledgment of responsibility produces full legal effects, pursuant to Articles 62 and 64 of the Rules of Procedure. The Court notes that most of the facts of the case, several legal arguments, and the need to adopt measures of reparation are no longer in dispute. In particular, the Court will not examine the violations of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention with respect to the shortcomings of the investigations and search actions through the end of 2019, since the State’s acknowledgement was clear in this regard, and this Court already has extensive, established case law on the obligation to investigate possible acts of forced disappearance. Therefore, the fact that the violations did take place is established based on the acknowledgment of responsibility itself, without prejudice to the specific implications and consequences of the violations that are also addressed in this judgment (infra paras. 143-148). All the persons whose rights are assessed by the Court in this judgment are victims of those violations, as explained in the next section.19 Cf. Case of Benavides Cevallos v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 19, 1998. Serie C No. 38, para. 57, and Case of Digna Ochoa and family members v. Mexico, supra, para. 24. 19 The reasons why the State limited its acknowledgment of responsibility under Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention to only some of the persons mentioned as victims in the Merits Report have to do with the State’s argument regarding persons who should not be considered victims. In other words, it is not a question of substantive arguments about the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection. Therefore, this Court holds that the violation of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, acknowledged by the State, harmed all the persons whose status as victims is determined in this judgment (infra, para. 54). It should be noted that, although the State did not specify which subparagraphs of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention were included in its acknowledgement, the representatives and 18 11