B.1 The facts 28. From the terms of the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility, it appears that the State has accepted: a) that Pedro Movilla has been missing since May 13, 1993, in the terms referred to in the Merits Report, as described below (infra 76);11 b) the facts of the case as set out in the Merits Report with respect to judicial and administrative proceedings related to Pedro Movilla’s disappearance, without prejudice to the presentation of additional information; and c) that “the specific circumstances of Mr. Movilla’s disappearance have yet to be determined, his whereabouts or the location of his remains are unknown,” and neither the motives nor the perpetrators have been established. 29. Furthermore, Colombia has accepted the rest of the factual framework of the case outlined by the Commission in the Merits Report, with the objections or nuances specified below: a) While the State’s acceptance of the facts does not explicitly exclude any of the factual circumstances that the Commission described, Colombia did make reference to the broader context, stating that it did not accept that there was a “State policy” or “pattern” related to the persecution and harassment of left-wing political parties and trade unionists. The Court understands this to mean that the State rejects the references in the Merits Report to the “national security doctrine” and the application of the concept of “the enemy within.” b) The State did not accept the entire description of the facts contained in the Merits Report in relation to circumstances leading up to Pedro Movilla’s disappearance.12 30. The State has also accepted acts of omission: a) “that it was not until 2019 that it diligently carried out13 the necessary investigations to identify and, if applicable, punish those responsible for Pedro Julio Movilla’s disappearance”; and b) its failure to draw up a search plan until the end of 2020. 31. The Court finds that, with the objections already noted (supra para. 29), the facts of the case are no longer in dispute. B.2 The legal claims 32. Bearing in mind the human rights violations acknowledged by the State, and its position regarding the group of victims (supra para. 15), as well as the observations of the representatives and the Commission, the State’s responsibility for the violation of the provisions of the American Convention on Human Rights set out below, to the detriment of the persons mentioned, is no longer in dispute: a) Articles 8 and 25 (the rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection), in relation to Article 1(1) (obligation to respect human rights), to the detriment of Pedro Movilla, and his following relatives: Candelaria Nuris Vergara Carriazo (wife); Carlos Julio Movilla Vergara (son), José Antonio Movilla Vergara (son), Jenny del Carmen Movilla Vergara (daughter) and Leonor María Movilla de Sierra (sister). The State “responded” to the account of what took place contained in paragraphs 23 to 31 of the Merits Report. In its brief, Colombia accepted that this specific event had indeed occurred. 12 These are the facts set out in paragraphs 23 to 31 of the Merits Report, to which the State, in its brief, “responded” specifically. In doing so, Colombia expressly accepted some circumstances as true and commented on the account presented by the Commission. With respect to the circumstances on the day that Mr. Movilla disappeared, which are described below (infra paras. 77-79), the State, in some cases, did not dispute them or say they were true, without prejudice to its own assessment of the implications. 13 The State’s acknowledgment in this regard covers: 1) “omissions in the initial stages of the investigation”, 2) “delay in instituting various proceedings of investigation,” and 3) “periods of inactivity”. 11 9