24 148. The Court considers that the acknowledgment of responsibility made by the State is a positive contribution to the development of this process and to the validity of the principles that inspire the American Convention.5 B) Extent of the subsisting controversy 149. After having examined the partial acknowledgment of responsibility made by the State and taking into account that stated by the Commission and the common intervener, the Court considers that the controversy subsists in the terms established in the following paragraphs. Regarding the facts 150. The Commission interpreted that the acknowledgment of the facts made by the State includes “[the] totality [of] the facts of the case.” (supra para. 145) The Tribunal does not agree with this appreciation, since the State clearly said that it “acknowledges its responsibility in the facts occurred between May 6 to 9, 1992” presented in the Commission’s application and it also expressed that “it acknowledges” “the situations expressed in the brief of pleadings, motions, and evidence presented by the common intervener.” Thus it is clear that Peru did not acknowledge the facts that occurred after May 9, 1992. It is important to point out that in the proceedings before the Court the State did not expressly object the evidence presented to prove the alleged facts after May 9, 1992. 151. In what refers to the facts that occurred between May 6 and 9, 1992, the Commission and the intervener do not coincide in the description and classification of some of them. Therefore, the Tribunal must take into account the more ample examination that the intervener offers on some facts that were not claimed by the Commission (infra paras. 167 through 169), and with regard to the facts that have been classified differently by the Commission and the intervener, it will determine said facts based on the evidence provided in this process (infra paras. 164 through 166). 152. Based on the aforementioned considerations, it concludes that the controversy subsists in what refers to the facts allegedly happened after May 9, 1992. Therefore, it will determine the corresponding facts proven, pursuant to that claimed by the parties and the body of evidence of the case. Regarding the rights whose violation is being claimed 153. In its response to the petition and observations to the brief of pleading and motions, the State acknowledged the violation of Article 1(1) of the Convention and stated that it acknowledged “partial responsibility” with regard to the violations of Articles 4 and 5 of the same “as long as the Judicial Power of Peru does not issue a ruling on the historical detailed truth of the events occurred between May 6 and 9, 1992.” It also expressly stated that it “contradicts the extremity of the application that requests that the [S]tate be declared responsible for the violation of the right to judicial protection.” 5 Cfr. Case of Vargas Areco, supra note 3, para. 65; Case of Goiburú et al. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, para. 52; and Case of Servellón García et al., supra note 3, para. 77.