9 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) and Article 7 (Right to Personal Liberty) of the Convention, in detriment of Bernabé Baldeón-García, and also as to the facts that have occurred since September 1990 “until the commencement of the transition to democracy” in November 2000, that were alleged by the Commission and the representatives as violations to Article 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and Article 25 (Judicial Protection) of the same, in detriment of the next of kin of Bernabé Baldeón-García, all of them with respect to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of such Convention, “due to the delay in the administration of justice.” The said facts are considered proven under paragraphs 72(1) through 72(19), 72(21), 72(25) through 72(29) and 72(38) through 72(44) of this Judgment. ii. Acknowledgment by the State as to claims regarding questions of law 46. The Court considers it convenient to allow the acknowledgment of international responsibility made by the State for the violation of the rights protected by the following provisions: Article 4 (Right to Life); Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) and Article 7 (Right to Personal Liberty) of the American Convention, as regards Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of the same, in detriment of Bernabé Baldeón-García. 47. Likewise, this Court admits the acknowledgment of international responsibility made by the State as regards the alleged violation of Article 8(1) (Right to a Fair Trial) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of the same, in detriment of Guadalupe Yllaconza-Ramirez de Baldeón; Crispín, Fidela, Roberto, Segundina, Miguelita, Perseveranda, Vicente and Sabina, Baldeón-Yllaconza, for the events that had occurred since September 1990 “until the commencement of the transition to democracy” in November 2000. iii Acknowledgment by the State as to claims regarding reparations 48. This Court considers that the State has not expressly acknowledged any of the claims regarding reparations and legal costs alleged by the Commission and the representatives. b) 49. Scope of the subsisting controversy Article 38(2) of the Rules of Procedure provides as follows: In its answer, the respondent must state whether it accepts the facts and claims or whether it contradicts them, and the Court may consider accepted those facts that have not been expressly denied and the claims that have not been expressly contested. 50. The State did not expressly answer the claims about the alleged violations of Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) and Article 25 (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in detriment of the next of kin of Bernabé Baldeón-García, and “reserved the right to address” those allegations (supra paras. 20 and 44). Likewise, the State did not answer the claim made by the representatives (supra para. 19) concerning the alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention against Torture, in detriment of Bernabé Baldeón-García.