of the brothers Tzompaxtle Tecpile and that of the shop that housed the family business. B.2 On the claims of law 22. In view of the violations acknowledged by the State, as well as the observations of the representatives and of the Commission, the Court considers that there is no longer a controversy regarding violations of the following rights of the Convention: a) Personal liberty (Article 7(1), 7(2), 7(3), 7(4), 7(5) and 7(6), read in conjunction with Article 1(1), to the detriment of Jorge Marcial Tzompaxtle Tecpile, Gerardo Tzompaxtle Tecpile and Gustavo Robles López, in the terms set out in the Report on the Merits. b) Privacy (Article 11), read in conjunction with Article 1(1), to the detriment of Jorge Marcial Tzompaxtle Tecpile, Gerardo Tzompaxtle Tecpile and Gustavo Robles López, in the terms set out in the Report on the Merits. c) Personal integrity (Article 5), read in conjunction with Article 1(1), to the detriment of Jorge Marcial Tzompaxtle Tecpile, Gerardo Tzompaxtle Tecpile and Gustavo Robles López, in the terms set out in the Report on the Merits. d) Fair trial and judicial protection (Articles 8(2), 8(2)(b), 8(2)(d), 8(2)(e), 8(2)(g) and 25(1)), read in conjunction with Article 1(1), to the detriment of Jorge Marcial Tzompaxtle Tecpile, Gerardo Tzompaxtle Tecpile and Gustavo Robles López, in the terms set out in the Report on the Merits. 23. A controversy remains on the alleged State responsibility for violating the duty to adopt provisions of domestic law (Article 2) due to the existence of arraigo and pre-trial detention to which the victims were subjected. There also remains a controversy on the alleged infringement of the right of privacy (Article 11(2)) due to the searches of the home of the mother of the brothers Tzompaxtle Tecpile and that of the shop that housed the family business on March 31, 2006, which was only alleged by the representatives. B.3 On reparations 24. With respect to measures of reparation, the Court notes that the State and the representatives have agreed on certain reparations, although there are others requested by the representatives on which there has not been an agreement. Therefore, there remains a partial controversy on this aspect, an issue that will be analyzed in Chapter IX of this judgment. B.4 Conclusions: assessment of the partial acknowledgement of responsibility 25. The State’s acknowledgement is an acceptance of the facts and a partial acknowledgement of the alleged violations. This acknowledgement has full legal effect, pursuant to Articles 62 and 64 of the Rules. The Court welcomes the State’s goodwill in partially acknowledging its international responsibility for its importance in the inter-American system of the protection of human rights and that the parties have raised the possibility of an agreement on reparations. The Court also notes that the acknowledgement of the specific facts and violations may have consequences on its analysis of other alleged acts and violations since they all are part of the same set of circumstances. 13 26. In view of the gravity of the facts and alleged violations, the Court will now proceed to a broad and detailed determination of what occurred as it will contribute to the reparation of the victims, to the non-repetition of similar events and, in short, to satisfy the purposes of the inter-American human 13 Cf. Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (The Disappeared from the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 14, 2014. Series C No. 287, para. 27 and Case of Digna Ochoa et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2021. Series C No. 447, para. 24. 8