- 16 - described in paragraphs 112 to 246 of the Merits Report, and (ii) the facts relating to the investigations into the acts denounced in this case, including the investigations conducted by the National Human Rights Commission (hereinafter “the CNDH”), by the SCJN, and by the local and federal penal authorities, described in paragraphs 247 to 307 of the Merits Report. To the contrary, the dispute subsists with regard to the context in which these facts occurred; in other words, the general background, the operations of May 3 and 4, 2006, and the reports of the police abuse committed during those operations. B.2 Regarding the legal claims 36. Mexico acknowledged, clearly and expressly, its international responsibility for the violation of all the rights that were alleged, but not for all the reasons indicated by the Commission and the representatives in this case. Consequently, the Court considers that the dispute has ceased in relation to the violation of the rights of the eleven women to: (i) personal liberty and judicial guarantees (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 liberty, the failure to notify the reasons for the detention and the lack of adequate defense counsel; (ii) personal integrity, privacy, the principle of equality, and the prohibition of discrimination and torture (Articles 5(1), 5(2), 11, 24 and 1(1) of the American Convention, 1 and 6 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture, and 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará), owing to the physical, psychological and sexual abuse, including acts of torture, suffered by the eleven women victims in this case, as well as the lack of adequate medical care and the effects on their health; (iii) judicial guarantees, judicial protection and equality before the law (Articles 8, 24 and 25 of the Convention) and the obligation to investigate acts of torture and violence against women (Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture and 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará), owing to the initial failure to investigate the facts ex officio and the inaccurate classification of the offenses made initially, and (iv) the obligation to adopt domestic legal provisions (Article 2 of the American Convention, 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture, and 7(c), (e) and (h) of the Convention of Belém do Pará), owing to the lack of a domestic legal framework on the use of force and torture at the time of the facts. In addition, the dispute has ceased with regard to the violation of personal integrity (Article 5(1) of the Convention) of the next of kin of the eleven women. 37. Furthermore, the Court notes that the dispute persists with regard to the violations of: (i) the obligation to adopt domestic legal provisions to criminalize torture appropriately, which continues up until the present time according to the representatives, and not just when the facts took place; (ii) the obligation to adopt domestic legal provisions for the effective investigation of violence against women, and (iii) judicial guarantees, judicial protection, equality before the law, and the obligation to investigate acts of torture and acts of violence against women, owing to the investigations and judicial actions of the federal authorities, as well as the investigations and judicial proceedings following the “initial stages.” In this regard, the Court notes that, before this Court, the State placed a temporal limitation on its acknowledgement of responsibility for those violations up to September 2010 when the “Atenco Group” was created to investigate the facts of the case. Meanwhile, the representatives alleged that, based on the position expressed by Mexico before the Commission, the said acknowledgement of international responsibility encompassed the State’s actions in relation to the investigations up until March 14, 2013, the date on which the State acquiesced to the claims of the representatives before the Commission. In this regard, the Court recalls that, in order to consider an act of the State an acquiescence or acknowledgement