5 alleged in its application (supra para. 1) and requested the Court to render judgment regarding the presumed violation of Articles 2 and 3 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture (hereinafter “Inter-American Convention against Torture”). 20. On July 22, 2005, the State filed its answer to the application and its comments on the brief of requests, arguments and evidence (hereinafter the “answer to the application”), together with documentary evidence. In said answer Peru partially acknowledged its international responsibility for the violations alleged by the Commission (supra para.1) as regards Article 4 (Right to Life), Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) and Article 7 (Right to Personal Liberty) of the Convention, as regards Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of the same, in detriment of Bernabé Baldeón-García, and also acknowledged its responsibility for the “delay in the administration of justice within the scope of Article 8(1)” (Right to a Fair Trial) of the said Convention, in detriment of the next of kin of the alleged victim. However, the State pointed out that the “violation of the right to a fair trial [...] could be traced back to the date on which the event occurred and up to the commencement of the transition to democracy, because since November 2000 there is an environment of Institutional freedom and autonomy so that the General Attorney’s Office and the Judiciary and any competent authorities may serve in their positions free from any kind of interference whatsoever by any individual or political body.” Lastly, the State made no reference to the alleged violations of Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) and Article 25 (Judicial Protection) of the Convention, in detriment of the next of kin of the alleged victim. 21. On August 3, 2005, the Secretariat, following orders of the President, requested the Commission and the representatives to submit before September 5, 2005, any comments that they might deem appropriate to the partial acknowledgement of international responsibility made by the State in its answer to the application. 22. On September 2, 2005, the Commission filed its comments to the partial acknowledgment of international responsibility made by the State in its answer to the application (supra para. 20). 23. On September 6 and 8, 2005, the representatives filed their comments to the partial acknowledgment of international responsibility made by the State in its answer to the application (supra para. 20). 24. On September 8, 2005, the Secretariat, following instructions of the Court en banc, requested the State to submit, before September 30, 2005, a statement to clarify “whether its acknowledgment of international responsibility extended to the alleged violation of Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) and Article 25 (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention,” in detriment of the next of kin of the alleged victim. 25. On October 20, 2005, the State, after an extension of term that had been granted, filed a statement to clarify the acknowledgment of responsibility made in the answer to the application, in response to the request made by the Court. In that respect, the State informed that “it made a reserve to address the matters regarding the international responsibility of the State derived from the violation of Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) and Article 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the Convention [...] in detriment of the next of kin of the [alleged] victim.”