26 detriment of Hugo Ticona. Afterwards, in the petition filed with the Court, the Commission stated that since "the Court has no jurisdiction ratione temporis to examine the illegal and arbitrary detention and tortures suffered by Hugo Ticona Estrada in 1980, […] it d[id] not include in the purpose of the […] application, the allegation of these violations. Nevertheless, it [did] include in the purpose of such application, the subsequent denial of justice of which Hugo Ticona Estrada has been a victim as of July 27, 1993, date on which the State accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court, not only with respect to his brother but to himself, since it is an ongoing violation of his rights”. Besides, in the legal arguments the Commission recalled that there has been a denial of justice “which has been continuous in relation to the violations committed against Hugo Ticona, [..t]hese crimes were brought to the attention of the state authorities when Hugo Ticona and his relatives rendered an statement in the corresponding investigation and, despite all, such crimes have not been investigated ex officio, as it should have happened". Nevertheless, in the conclusions of the petition, the Commission requested the Court to declare the violation of Articles 5, 8, and 25 of the Convention, to the detriment of the relatives of Renato Ticona and made no clarification regarding the alleged violation of Articles 8 and 25 to the detriment of Hugo Ticona based on the reasons stated in the purpose of the petition and the legal arguments. 90. During the public hearing and in the closing arguments, the Commission recalled that the denial of justice of the instant case also involves the absence of an investigation and procedure regarding the alleged deprivation of liberty and torture suffered by Hugo Ticona. Moreover, it stated that “it springs from the facts it that occurred before July 27, 1993, date on which the State […] accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court that the State had the obligation to investigate the tortures denounced by Hugo Ticona. It is worth mentioning that such obligation was pending compliance the date on which the State recognized the adversary jurisdiction of the Court". 91. The representative argued in the brief of requests and motions that under sections 575 and 4676 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Bolivia, in force at the time of the facts, it was established that the criminal action arises out of public law and prosecutable ex officio and that criminal prosecutors are responsible for promoting and request the preliminary investigation, after learning about the commission of a crime prosecutable on an ex officio basis. Furthermore, it reasserted that “notwithstanding the above mentioned, neither the Ministerio Público nor a court initiated a criminal investigation ex officio for the human rights violations committed to Hugo Ticona Estrada, despite the fact that in the case file named Comisión Nacional C/ René Veizaga et al., being heard since 1983 by a Bolivian court, there are plenty history case and evidence of the arbitrary detention, torture and confinement that Hugo Ticona suffered". 92. The State, in its acquiescence, expressed, among other things, that it acknowledged its international responsibility, in general, for the violation of the rights embodied in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention and it expressly made no 75 Article 5 established that “[C]riminal action arises out of public law […] for crimes prosecuted by the Ministerio Público [Office of Public Prosecutor], without prejudice to private complaints or accusations;” 76 Section 46 established that "It is the responsibility of prosecutors in criminal matters: i) to promote and bring criminal action in crimes under public law, without relying on a complaint on the part of the victim. 2) Immediately request the preliminary investigation, after learning about the commission of a crime prosecutable on an ex officio basis [...]".