d) In addition, it expressed its total opposition regarding the alleged violations of: 1. Article 22 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of the next of kin of some of the disappeared victims; 2. The right to the truth, alleged by the representatives; 3. Article II of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance; 4. Article 19 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of the next of kin of the disappeared victims who were children when their loved ones were disappeared. e) Regarding the facts, the State indicated that it “accept[ed] the facts that resulted in the violation of the rights already acknowledged by the State in this case.” f) The State also “acknowledged” as victims all those persons identified as such by the representatives and the Commission. g) Lastly, regarding the measures of reparation requested, it expressed its “commitment to continue expediting” the investigation into the facts of the case and the search for the mortal remains of the victims whose whereabouts is still unknown, as well as its “willingness” to carry out, or take steps to ensure compliance with, the other measures of reparation requested. It asked the Court to take into account the results of the actuarial report presented by the State and the collective nature of the case when establishing the compensation in this case. The State also considered that it should not be ordered to pay the costs and expenses, because of its willingness to reach a friendly settlement B) Observations of the Commission and of the representatives 18. The Inter-American Commission assessed the acknowledgment of responsibility made by the State. It indicated its understanding that “there is no dispute about the factual framework that substantiates [the] violations [regarding which Guatemala has acknowledged full responsibility], nor […] the legal consequences described”; nevertheless, the dispute persists with regard to the other violations. However, the Commission emphasized that the State had acknowledged all the victims that it had presented. Regarding the State's partial acknowledgment in relation to the violations against Rudy Gustavo Figueroa Muñoz and Wendy Santizo Méndez, the Commission recalled that, when it submitted the case to the Court, it had not included the facts relating to the forced disappearance followed by the extrajudicial execution of Rudy Gustavo Figueroa Muñoz, or the detention and torture of Wendy Santizo Méndez. The Commission asked the Court to give full legal effect to the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility, and to make a detailed description of the facts and the violations that had occurred, and a thorough analysis of the merits concerning the partially accepted or contested violations. 19. For their part, the representatives expressed their “satisfaction” with the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility. However, they regretted that Guatemala had not helped clarify the facts, because it had failed to “indicate its position with regard to [the] factual framework established by […] the Commission and supplemented by […] the representatives,” or to “indicate the specific conduct” for which it acknowledged responsibility,” or to provide the “official documents in its custody” that could contribute to the clarification of the truth. Furthermore, they indicated that: (i) the dispute remains regarding the violations that the State contested totally; (ii) the partial acquiescence with - 10 -