-7remembrance of the alleged victims and of the satisfaction due to their next of kin; c) it respected equality between the parties in the proceeding before it, regarding admissibility of the case. However, the State did not argue that said right had been diminished, but rather that the Commission did not decide in favor of the State; d) the acknowledgment by the State is, nevertheless, partial, and does not refer to all the facts, persons and violations mentioned in the application and in the brief containing pleadings and motions; e) the merits stage must remain open, to decide on all the legal and factual arguments, raised by the representatives and by the Commission, and on the responsibility of the State regarding all individuals, both identified and unidentified, who were mentioned as alleged victims in the application and in the brief containing pleadings and motions; f) given the temporal and spatial sequence of the facts, it is not possible to separate the pleadings regarding abridgment of Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention from consideration of the acts that preceded and followed the massacre in Mapiripán, that is, the acts of context prior to July 1997, according to the factual and legal arguments of the parties regarding Articles 4, 5 and 7 of the American Convention. The State also excludes the pleadings by both parties, in combination with Article 1(1) of the Convention and by the representatives with regard to Articles 19 and 22 of that same Convention; and g) the declaration by the State does not define the alleged victims, with regard to whom it has partially acknowledged responsibility. And it does not refer to the next of kin of the alleged victims, both identified and unidentified, or to the survivors of the massacre, as alleged victims, in accordance with the claims of the Commission and the representatives. 22. At said public hearing, with regard to the acknowledgment of responsibility made by the State and regarding the preliminary objections raised, in addition to the briefs included in the file with regard to the latter, the representatives stated, inter alia, that: a) they appreciate the act of remembrance of the alleged victims and the apology to their next of kin and to Colombian society; b) the explicit expression by the State of its willingness to move forward in elucidation of the case; however, it is “unsatisfactory” regarding the fundamental factual and legal issues that are significant to decide on the case. In this regard, the representatives pointed out that said declaration: i. does not acknowledge the specifications regarding the facts made by the representatives in their brief containing pleadings and motions; ii. it substantially limits the significant facts of the case, both those stated in the application and in the brief containing pleadings and motions;