15 52. In the response to the application, the State made a partial acknowledgment of its international responsibility (supra para. 6), in the following terms: • The State acknowledges “[i]ts international responsibility derived from the violation of Articles 5, 7, as well as the partial non-compliance of the obligations derived from Articles 8 and 25, all of the Convention, and in connection to 1(1) of the same instrument in detriment of Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco,” and • The State acknowledges “its international responsibility derived from the failure to comply with Article 5, as well as the partial non-compliance of the obligations derived from Articles 8 and 25, all of the Convention and in connection with 1(1) of the same document, in detriment of the next of kin of Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco”. 53. In that sense, it indicated that: • “[s]ince the criminal justice system of Mexico sought and started a criminal procedure against Mr. Francisco Quiroz Hermosillo, it is acknowledged that Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco was illegally and arbitrarily deprived of his freedom by a public official;” • “[t]he State […] incurred in an unjustified delay in the investigations into the disappearance of Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco, the location of his remains, and the identification of those probably responsible for the criminal facts.” Thus, “[i]n the case sub judice the State of Mexico has not been able to guarantee the petitioners that their right to a due process will be promptly guaranteed.” • “the State of Mexico is aware that the obligation to investigate and punish facts that presumably violate human rights cannot be transferred to the petitioners, but it is also important to point out that the investigation and punishment of those facts becomes more difficult when they are not denounced in a timely manner.” This “resulted in a serious delay in the elucidation of the facts of the case, since the obtainment of evidence, both for the determination of the possible responsible parties, as well as for the location of the remains of Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco, becomes more complicated as time goes by.” • “[e]ven though the State admits the unjustified delay in this case, it also requests that the […] Court especially take into consideration the complexity of the present matter to determine the reasonability of the term for its resolution. The Court itself has admitted the difficulty that the investigation of a case that occurred a long time before the first cabinet complaints and even before non-jurisdictional bodies were presented by the next of kin and the representatives of the alleged victim implies.” • “[t]hus, it is said that there is a denial of justice, not due to the State’s negligence or will to maintain impunity, but because it has not been possible to locate the remains of Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco or establish his whereabouts. […] It is undeniable that the unjustified delay in the investigations has caused detriment to the next of kin of Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco, since they have not been able to receive news about his whereabouts and fate. Additionally, the anguish characteristic of human nature that results from not knowing the fate of a loved one, force an acknowledgment of the State’s responsibility regarding that situation, in violation of Article 5 of the American Convention on Human Rights.” 54. On the other hand, the State contested the alleged impunity in the present case, “since the investigation continues,” and because “there are enough elements to prove that currently the authorities are exhausting all legal means within their reach to avoid [it].” The State also indicated that the Court “shall declare itself incompetent to analyze the circumstantial context […] in this case.” Finally, The State of Mexico denied its “international