A.1. Arguments of the State and observations by the Commission and the representatives 19. In relation to the lack of investigation of the torture alleged by Mr. Valenzuela, the State partially recognized its responsibility only for the failure to investigate the acts of torture that were reported on several occasions by Mr. Valenzuela Ávila in violation of articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention and article 8 of the IACPPT. Additionally, it stated that “through this act, the State […] wishes to make a public apology to Tirso Román Valenzuela Ávila, through his representatives in [the] proceedings, for the impact that this omission could have had on the victim and Guatemalan society in general.” 20. The representatives pointed out that the State has indicated that it has violated its duty of guarantee, since by accepting that it has violated Article 6 of the IACPPT, it has failed to comply with its duty to take effective measures to prevent and adequately punish acts of torture. Similarly, they indicated that the acknowledgment of responsibility extends to the failure to obtain an evaluation and medical assistance in favor of the alleged victim for the injuries caused by the torture. It would also include the refusal by the Court of Appeals to adopt the necessary measures so that medical assistance was provided. The representatives requested that all of this be clarified in the judgment. Lastly, they pointed out that as a natural consequence of accepting international responsibility, the State has implicitly recognized other facts and violations that derive directly from the generalized pattern of impunity that existed in the country due to its breach of the duty of guarantee. 21. The Commission assessed positively the State’s acknowledgment of international responsibility and underlined that the dispute has ceased only with regard to the omission of the State to initiate investigations ex officio in a diligent, effective manner and within a reasonable time in response to the allegations of torture of the alleged victim. A.2. Considerations of the Court 22. Taking into account that the State partially acknowledged its international responsibility, the Court considers that the dispute has ceased regarding the State's omission of its duty to investigate the alleged acts of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. Consequently, this Court understands that the State has accepted its international responsibility for the failure to investigate ex officio the alleged acts of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, in violation of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention, as well as Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the IACPPT, to the detriment of Mr. Valenzuela Ávila. 23. In consideration of the State's partial acknowledgment of international responsibility, and the observations of the Commission and the representatives, the Court considers that the dispute remains for the other aspects of fact and law alleged in this case, in relation to articles 1(1), 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 17, 19 and 25 of the American Convention, and where relevant, the violation of Articles 7 and 10 of the IACPPT. B. Partial acknowledgment of the responsibility of the State regarding the need to reform article 201 bis of the Criminal Code, which defines the crime of torture B.1. Arguments of the State and observations of the Commission and the representatives 8