b) Regarding the allegations of the representatives and the Inter-American Commission in this case, the State indicated its “total acceptance” in relation to the alleged violations of: 1. Articles 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, and Articles I and XI of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance, to the detriment of the 26 persons who remained disappeared at the time of the submission of the case (hereinafter “the 26 victims of forced disappearance” or “the 26 disappeared victims”); 2. Article 19 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Juan Pablo Armira López and María Quirina Armira López, who were minors at the time of their detention and subsequent disappearance; 3. Articles 5 and 17 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of the next of kin of the 26 disappeared victims; 4. Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, as well as Article I of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearances and Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention Against Torture, to the detriment of the 26 disappeared victims and their next of kin, because their access to justice was not ensured, and they were not accorded a rapid and simple remedy, and 5. Articles 16 and 23 of the [Convention], considering that the victims were not guaranteed freedom of expression, because there were both legal and political restrictions to this right as a result of their political participation in student groups or trade unions, or because they were leaders of social movements,” as well as “to the detriment of the next of kin of the 26 disappeared victims.” c) It also indicated its “partial acknowledgement” regarding the alleged violations of: 1. Articles 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Rudy Gustavo Figueroa Muñoz, as well as for the alleged violation of Articles 5, 7, 11 and 19 of the Convention and Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará, and Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention Against Torture, to the detriment of Wendy Santizo Méndez, because the facts that originated these violations may be examined by the Court as of the date on which the State recognized its competence; 2. Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, as well as Article I of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance and Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention Against Torture, to the detriment of Rudy Gustavo Figueroa Muñoz and his next of kin, and also in relation to Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará, to the detriment of Wendy Santizo Méndez and her next of kin, based on the Court’s temporal competence; 3. Articles 13, 16 and 23, to the detriment of Rudy Gustavo Figueroa Muñoz and his next of kin, based on the Court’s temporal competence; 4. Articles 5 and 17 of the Convention, to the detriment of Rudy Gustavo Figueroa Muñoz and of Wendy Santizo Méndez; 5. Article 13 of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, owing to the supposed violation of the right of access to information, to the detriment of the next of kin of the 26 disappeared victims and the next of kin of Rudy Gustavo Figueroa Muñoz. -9-