b) Articles 5(1) and 5(2) (the right to physical, mental and moral integrity, and the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment), in relation to Article 1(1) (obligation to respect rights), to the detriment of Candelaria Nuris Vergara Carriazo, Carlos Julio Movilla Vergara, José Antonio Movilla Vergara, Jenny del Carmen Movilla Vergara and Leonor María Movilla de Sierra.14 33. The State also acknowledged that it had violated Articles 3, 4, 5, and 7, in relation to Article 1(1) (rights to the recognition of juridical personality, to life, to personal integrity and to personal liberty, in relation to the obligation to respect human rights), to the detriment of Pedro Movilla, because of its failure to investigate his disappearance. 34. Based on the State’s acknowledgment of international responsibility, the Court adjudges the human rights violations referred to in the two preceding paragraphs to have been established, to the detriment of the persons mentioned. In accordance with the terms of the State’s acknowledgment, the factual basis for the violations is the State’s failure to undertake diligent investigative actions in the period between Pedro Movilla’s disappearance and 2019. 35. Still in dispute are the allegations of the Commission and/or the representatives regarding the State’s responsibility for the violation of the following provisions, to the detriment of the persons indicated: a) Articles 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the treaty (obligations to respect the rights established in the Convention, and to adopt domestic legal effects), and Articles I a) and I d) of the IACFDP (obligations not to practice, permit, or tolerate the forced disappearance of persons, and to take the measures necessary to comply with the commitments of the treaty), to the detriment of Pedro Movilla. b) Articles 13 and 16 of the American Convention (the rights to freedom of expression and association), in relation to the obligations contained in Articles 1(1) and 2, to the detriment of Pedro Movilla. c) Articles I b) (obligation to punish those responsible for the crime of forced disappearance) and I d) of the IACFDP, regarding the investigation of the facts, to the detriment of Pedro Movilla and his relatives.15 d) Articles 17 (right to protection of the family) and 19 (rights of the child) of the American Convention, in relation to its Article 1(1), to the detriment of Mr. Movilla’s relatives, in the first case, and his two sons and one daughter, in the second.16 e) Articles 5, 8(1), 13 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to its Article 1(1), to the detriment of Pedro Movilla’s relatives, regarding the “autonomous right to know the truth”.17 It should be pointed out that the State did not expressly exclude Nery del Carmen Movilla Galarcio, Mr. Movilla’s sister, from its acknowledgment of responsibility. However, as explained below (infra, para. 43), it did ask that deceased persons be excluded as alleged victims, which is the case of Ms. Movilla. The Court therefore accepts that the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility does not include her. 15 In other words, all the relatives of Pedro Movilla mentioned in the Merits Report, subject to the clarifications and decisions that follow (infra Chapter V). The “relatives” mentioned in the following subparagraphs are this group of people. The representatives mentioned Article 2 of the Convention in their pleadings and motions brief. However, in the specific section of that brief in which they argued that the obligation to investigate had been violated, they did not make specific allegations regarding Article 2, concluding that the State had violated other norms, but without referring to it by name. The Court finds that there are no grounds for including Article 2 of the Convention in the dispute in relation to the obligation to investigate and Articles 8 and 25 of the treaty. 16 The representatives alleged this violation together with the violation, accepted by the State, of Articles 5(1) and 5(2) of the Convention. They did not specify whether the alleged violation of Article 1(1) of the Convention is related to the obligation to respect, to guarantee, or to both. 17 Although the State “partially” acknowledged the violation of the right to the truth, it asked the Court not to declare the violation of the provisions in question, alleged by the representatives, with respect to that right. 14 10