investigating the facts that took place to the detriment of Ms. Bedoya from the moment the State became aware of them, including the failure to investigate the attack on Ms. Bedoya and her mother on May 27, 1999. 26. In view of the foregoing, the Court finds that the dispute over what the State recognized has ceased. However, the dispute over other essential aspects of the case persists, such as the State's actions at the time of the facts that took place on May 25, 2000; the way in which the investigation into these facts was conducted; and the impacts of all this on Ms. Bedoya and her mother, Ms. Luz Nelly Lima. b.2 Regarding the legal claims 27. Taking into account the violations recognized by the State, as well as the observations of the representatives and the Commission, the Court finds there is no longer any dispute regarding the following violations: a) Violation of personal integrity (Article 5), judicial guarantees (Article 8) and judicial protection (Article 25), in relation to the obligation to guarantee the rights enshrined in the American Convention on Human Rights (Article 1(1)), as well as the duty of due diligence established in Article 7(b) of the Convention of Belém do Pará, to the detriment of Ms. Bedoya with respect to the specific deficiency in the criminal investigation involving the taking of testimony from Ms. Bedoya 12 times. b) Violation of the rights to honor and dignity (article 11), personal integrity (article 5), judicial guarantees (article 8) and judicial protection (article 25), in relation to the obligation to guarantee the rights enshrined in the American Convention on Human Rights (Article 1(1)), to the detriment of Ms. Bedoya and her mother in relation to the lack of due diligence in the investigation of the threats that Ms. Bedoya received, as well as the failure to investigate the attack on Ms. Bedoya and her mother on May 27, 1999. c) Violation of articles 1, 6, and 8 of the ICPPT, to the detriment of Ms. Bedoya, as a result of lack of due diligence in the investigation of the threats against her that were brought to the attention of the State. 28. In view of the foregoing, the dispute persists with regard to the following: a) The State’s alleged international responsibility for the facts that took place on May 25, 2000. b) The State’s alleged international responsibility for the remaining deficiencies alleged by the Commission and the representatives in the framework of the criminal procedure related to the aforementioned facts of May 25, 2000. c) The alleged violation of freedom of thought and expression due to a lack of due diligence in investigating the threats against Ms. Bedoya issued before and after the events of May 25, 2000. d) The alleged violation of the right to defend human rights due to the lack of due diligence in investigating the threats against Ms. Bedoya issued before and after the events of May 25, 2000. e) The alleged violation of the personal integrity of Luz Nelly Lima due to the suffering caused as a result of the violations committed in this case to the detriment of her daughter, Ms. Bedoya. 11