surrounded the violent death of Assistant Commissioner Gutiérrez and the investigation opened into this, in order to elucidate, insofar as possible, the truth of what happened, and to determine the State’s responsibility derived from this, as well as measures to re-establish the enjoyment of the violated rights, and the corresponding reparations. 23. Furthermore, with regard to the legal arguments submitted by the parties, the Court notes that the State rejected the parts of the pleadings and motions brief that presumably assimilated the facts of this case to situations of a systematic or generalized nature. For their part, the representatives explained that their arguments referred to “institutional structural deficiencies” of the provincial system of justice and of the functioning of the police forces involved (supra para. 20). The Court considers that the dispute remains on this point, and it also observes that the arguments presented by the parties are closely connected to the delimitation of the factual framework of the case, which will be analyzed in the chapter on prior considerations. 24. Despite the foregoing, the Court notes that the State assumed its international responsibility for the violation of Article 4 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Jorge Omar Gutiérrez, as well as of Articles 5, 8 and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this treaty, to the detriment of his widow, Nilda del Valle Maldonado de Gutiérrez, 13 his three children, Marilin Verónica, Jorge Gabriel and Omar David, 14 all with the surname Gutiérrez, and his siblings, Francisco Virgilio Gutiérrez and Nilda Elena Gutiérrez. 15 The Court decides to accept the acknowledgement made by the State with regard to these violations and will analyze their scope in the corresponding chapters. 25. In addition, in the Agreement, the State and the representatives asked the Court to rule expressly on the validity of the res judicata conferred on the acquittal of one of those accused of the murder of Jorge Omar Gutiérrez, which, in their opinion, “deserves to be classified as ‘fraudulent,’” and on the legal consequences derived from it. Likewise, they asked the Court to refer to the inadmissibility of the provisions of the statute of limitations in relation to the investigation and punishment of the other masterminds and perpetrators of the extrajudicial execution of Jorge Omar Gutiérrez. In this regard, the Court will refer to the said requests in the corresponding chapter of this Judgment. 26. Regarding the reparations requested, in the Agreement the parties considered it “desirable” that the Court endorse the “agenda agreed on” by them and “its respective timetable.” However, when the Court requested that the said timetable be presented, the State advised that the parties had “made progress on the said Agreement during successive working meetings, without this including a detailed or precise timetable […],” and that it had been considered “that when the Court delivers judgment, all the parties concerned […] will work on the preparation of a timetable that includes approximate dates for each of the points” agreed on (supra paras. 11 and 17). In this regard, the Court notes that, despite the execution of the said Agreement, the dispute remains concerning some of the measures of reparation requested and their scope (supra paras. 16 and 17). Consequently, the Court will make the corresponding rulings in the respective chapter taking into account the Agreement reached. 13 Cf. Copy of Passport (merits file, folio 818). 14 Cf. Birth certificates (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, folios 2631 to 2633). 15 Cf. Affidavits of April 9, 2013 (merits file, folios 697 and 715). 12