6 21. In exercise of its powers arising from the international judicial protection of human rights, the Court will examine the admissibility of the partial acknowledgement and decide its juridical effects. A) The terms of the State’s partial acknowledgement of international responsibility 22. In relation to the facts concerning Saúl Cantoral-Huamaní and Consuelo GarcíaSanta Cruz, the State indicated that “the murder of the [alleged] victims cannot be denied”; nevertheless, “there are basic contradictions” “regarding the placed where the kidnapping of the [alleged] victims occurred” and “details of the place and time of [their] interception” “are unclear.” The State also indicated that “it is not responsible for the facts reported concerning the murder of Saúl Isaac Cantoral-Huamaní and Consuelo García-Santa Cruz because, based on the facts investigated, this action cannot be attributed to State agents.” 23. Regarding the investigations conducted in the case, the State confessed “that “[…] the limited progress in the investigation into these murders during 17 years cannot be denied; during this time, investigations by both the police and the Attorney General’s office have been unsuccessful.” 24. Regarding the alleged torture suffered by the alleged victims before their death, the State indicated that “the preliminary investigations do not prove the alleged physical and/or psychological torture of the [alleged] victims.” 25. With respect to legal claims, the State indicated that, pursuant to the facts it has acknowledged (supra paras. 22 and 23) “it cannot be held internationally responsible for the alleged violation of Articles 4, 5, 7 and 16 of the American Convention,” to the detriment of Saúl Cantoral-Huamaní and Consuelo García-Santa Cruz. 26. Regarding the alleged violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, the State indicated that “it is partially responsible for not respecting the judicial guarantees and judicial protection of [the] next of kin [of the alleged victims, as established in] Articles 8 and 25 of the [American Convention]. However, given the existence […, as of 2001,] of an independent and impartial investigation procedure before the Attorney General’s Office, the violation has ceased and has not been consummated, and rights have been restored that are being fully exercised by the victims and their next of kin.” 27. Regarding the alleged violation of Article 5 of the Convention in relation to the next of kin of the alleged victims, the State indicated, in both the chapter entitled “Article 5 of the [Convention]” of its answer to the application and in the chapter with the same title of its final arguments that: “with regard to the next of kin of the [alleged] victims of human rights violations, the Court […] has indicated that they may, in turn, be victims.” Moreover, it added that, “[in] this case, given the sufferings of the [alleged] victims, we can state that these sufferings extend to the closest members of the family, particularly those who had close affective ties with the [alleged] victims. This is because the [alleged] victims died in unclear circumstances and also because the authors of this crime have not been discovered, investigated and punished.” 28. Despite the foregoing, in the chapter of its final arguments entitled “nonacknowledgement of international responsibility for the alleged violation of Article[…] 5 […] of the Convention,” the State indicated that the alleged violation of this Article was not “is not applicable either to the next of kin of the [alleged] victims in this case, because the next of kin of the victims have not received cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment during the investigative procedure from either the police or the judicial authorities.” Furthermore,