- 13 - acknowledgement to the factual determinations reached by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (hereinafter, “the Supreme Court” or the SCJN”) in its analysis of the events that occurred on May 3 and 4, 2006. Mexico acknowledged the violation of the following rights of the eleven women: a) Violation of the right to personal liberty and judicial guarantees recognized in Articles 7(1), 7(2), 7(3), 7(4), 8(2)(b), 8(2)(d) and 8(2)(e) of the Convention, owing to the deprivation of their liberty accompanied by the failure to notify the reasons of their detention and to provide appropriate defense counsel. b) Violation of the right to personal integrity, privacy, autonomy and dignity, equality and non-discrimination recognized in Articles 5(1), 5(2), 11 and 24 in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention; the right not to be tortured recognized in Articles 1 and 630 of the InterAmerican Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture (hereinafter “the Inter-American Convention against Torture”), and the right to live a life free of violence recognized in Article 7 of the Inter-American Convention for the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women (hereinafter “the Convention of Belém do Pará”), owing to the “physical, psychological and sexual abuse, including acts of sexual torture,” and also the denigrating treatment and invasion of their privacy, the lack of adequate medical care, and the effects on their health. c) Violation of judicial guarantees and judicial protection and equality before the law recognized in Articles 8, 24 and 25 in relation to 1(1) of the Convention, and the obligation to investigate violence against women recognized in Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the InterAmerican Convention against Torture and Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará, owing to the lack of an investigation ex officio at the outset and following the events addressed at clarifying the facts and identifying those responsible, and also owing to the inaccurate classification of the offenses at the start. The State underlined that, “despite the foregoing, […] the investigations conducted by the Attorney General’s Office (PGR) at the federal level were implemented diligently and without delay; therefore, the State does not acknowledge any alleged violation with regard to the investigations conducted at the federal level.” d) Violation of its obligation to adopt domestic legal provisions to implement the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognized in the Convention, the Inter-American Convention against Torture, and the Convention of Belém do Pará recognized in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention, Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture and Articles 7(c), (e) and (h) of the Convention of Belém do Pará, owing to the absence of a domestic legal framework on the use of force and torture at the time of the facts. 29. The State also acknowledged the violation of the right to personal integrity recognized in Article 5(1) in relation to 1(1) of the Convention, “to the detriment of the victims’ next of kin as a result of their suffering.” 30. Regarding the facts, the State specified that its acknowledgement was “based on the determinations reached by the SCJN in its analysis of the events that occurred on May 3 and 4, April 8, 2013 (evidence file, folios 11618 and 11619), and Merits Report No. 74/15, paras. 9, 10, 58, 59 and 63 to 69 (merits file, folios 12 and 20 to 22). In both its answering brief and in its final arguments, the State indicated that it acknowledged the violation of “Articles 1 and 86” of the Inter-American Convention against Torture. The Court understands that this was an error and that the State was referring to Articles “1 and 6” of that treaty, which were the articles that the Commission and the representatives alleged had been violated. 30