such as those that occurred in this case, are not repeated. 23 By the same token, in the judgments in the Mapiripán, Pueblo Bello and La Rochela Massacres versus Colombia, the Court deemed that comprehensive reparation of the violation of a right protected by the Convention cannot be restricted to payment of compensation to the next of kin of the victim. In keeping with this precedent, in the event of finding the State responsible for a violation of human rights, the Commission must consider pecuniary elements sufficient to repair both material and moral injuries sustained, as well as non-pecuniary elements, measures of satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition that comprehensively repair the consequences of the violations. In that regard, the Commission finds that the delivery of a sum of money to the father of Mirey Trueba in acknowledgement of the State's responsibility could be regarded as partial reparation of the damage caused by the State, since it is not sufficient or effective reparation for all the harm caused; in other words, comprehensive reparation remains pending. Based on the foregoing, the IACHR decides to declare the petition admissible in spite of the existence of the aforesaid agreement. 57. The Commission believes that it is not appropriate at this stage of the proceedings to determine whether or not the alleged violations actually occurred, as that is to be addressed during the analysis of the merits of the case. However, the Commission considers that the allegations, if proven, would tend to establish violations of Articles 2, 4, 5, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, and that the case is admissible in accordance with the requirements set forth in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention. 58. In keeping with the principle of iurit novit curia, the Commission will examine in the stage on merits if a possible violation exists of Articles 2 and 5 of the American Convention as regards the duty to adopt domestic legal provisions and the right to humane treatment, respectively, given that those articles are implied in the description of the facts alleged in the petition, though not explicitly invoked by the petitioners. V. CONCLUSION 59. The Commission concludes that the case is admissible and that it has competence to examine the petitioners’ claim regarding the alleged violation of Articles 4, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, all in connection with the obligations arising from Articles 1(1) thereof. 60. In light of the foregoing arguments of fact and law, and without prejudging the merits of the case, 23 Cfr. I/A Court H. R., Case of Maritza Urrutia. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C No. 103, para. 144. 15