rehabilitation, Colombia indicated that it “would delay its observations on this measure of reparation until its closing arguments in order to have a more informed opinion after hearing the relevant testimony that would be submitted to the Court.” However, in its final arguments, the State did not give any opinion in this respect. Regarding the measure of “educational rehabilitation” and the measures of satisfaction and guarantees of nonrepetition, Colombia stated that it “adheres to whatever the Court decides” based on criteria of reasonableness and proportionality, and respecting the causal nexus with the violations proved. The State also analyzed the requests for compensation for pecuniary and nonpecuniary damage and reimbursement of costs and expenses, being “aware of the obligation [to make pecuniary reparation] and in keeping with the terms of its partial acknowledgment of responsibility.” The State asked the Court to “establish the amounts it considered appropriate,” but argued that the total amount requested was excessive compared to the sums ordered in other cases, and maintained that some claims for compensation had no causal nexus or supporting evidence. 17. The Court underscores that, during the public hearing before this Court, the State addressed the victims to apologize, as follows: [The State] would also like to address [the victims] to apologize for the events that occurred and to reiterate its willingness to remedy these incidents that should never have taken place. Mr. Vélez, the State regrets having violated your right to personal integrity owing to the attack you suffered as a result of the acts of some members of the National Army when you refused to hand over your video camera to them on August 29, 1996. It regrets having violated the individual dimension of your right to freedom of expression by preventing you from exercising your right to seek information owing to the attack suffered on August 29, 1996. Mr. Vélez, Mrs. Román, and, through you, Juliana and Mateo, the State regrets having violated your rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection. The State acknowledges as unjustifiable that a diligent investigation was not conducted that would have allowed the perpetrators of the attack suffered on August 29, 1996, to be determined and criminally punished; that a diligent investigation was not conducted that would have allowed the presumed authors of the threats that occurred to be determined and eventually criminally punished, and that there has been a violation of reasonable time in the investigation underway for the presumed attempted kidnapping of October 1997. 18. The Commission indicated that “it assessed positively the State of Colombia’s partial acknowledgment of responsibility and considers that it makes a positive contribution to these Inter-American proceedings and, in general, to the exercise of human rights.” The Commission considered that, regarding the facts, this acknowledgment “is ambiguous on several points,” because the State affirms that some facts of the Merits Report are “partially true,” without specifying which facts it accepts as true and which it does not. The Commission also indicated the alleged violations that it understood were acknowledged by the State and those that were not included in the said acknowledgment. The Commission asked that the Court to give legal effect to the said acknowledgment; “compile a detailed description of the facts […] and the violations that took place,” and “make a comprehensive analysis of the violations that have been partially accepted and those that are contested.” 19. In his brief with observations on the State’s partial acknowledgment of responsibility in its answering brief, the representative referred to alleged violations that Colombia had not acknowledged. B) Considerations of the Court 20. Pursuant to Articles 62 and 64 of the Court Rules of Procedure,12 and in exercise of its authority for the judicial protection of international human rights, an issue of 12 Articles 62 and 64 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure establish: Article 62. Acquiescence 9