52 the so-called “parallel groups” in power, and also a lack of diligence in conducting the investigations, all of which has signified that, to date, there is total impunity with regard to the facts that occurred on July 3, 1993 (supra para. 76(23) to 76(65)). All this has been accompanied by constant threats and intimidation of the next of kin, witnesses and members of the judiciary. 79. Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court establishes that: If the respondent informs the Court of its acquiescence to the claims of the party that has brought the case as well as the to claims of the representatives of the alleged victims, his next of kin or representatives, the Court, after hearing the opinions of the other parties to the case whether such acquiescence and its juridical effects are acceptable. In that event, the Court shall determine the appropriate reparations and indemnities. 80. The order of the Court delivered on July 5, 2004, in this case, which indicated in its considering paragraphs: 1. That the State […] acknowledg[ed] the facts and its international responsibility for the violation of Articles 1(1), 4(1), 5, 8(1), 13(1), 13(2)(a), 13(3), 19, 23 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights in the instant case, without detriment to the scope of this acknowledgement being embodied in the judgment that this Court [will] deliver, in which the facts that occurred in the instant case [will] appear. 2. That the said acknowledgement made by the State […] [would] not interrupt the process of receiving the evidence requested with regard to reparations and costs. Then, the Court declared: 1. That […] the dispute concerning the facts ha[d] ceased and, consequently, the stage on merits [was] terminated. And finally decided: 2. To admit the acknowledgement of international responsibility made by the State in the terms of the first and second considering paragraphs of [the said] order. 3. To continue holding the public hearing convened in an order of the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of May 26, 2004, and to circumscribe its purpose to reparations and costs in the instant case. […] 81. The Court deems that the facts referred to in paragraph 76 of this judgment have been proved and, based on them and weighing the circumstances of the case, it will proceed to specify the different violations found in the articles cited. 82. Consequently, the Court considers that the State incurred international responsibility for the violation of the rights embodied in the following articles of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) thereof: a) 4(1) (Right to Life), to the detriment of Jorge Carpio Nicolle, Juan Vicente Villacorta Fajardo, Alejandro Ávila Guzmán and Rigoberto Rivas González; b) 5(1) (Right to Humane Treatment), to the detriment of Sydney Shaw Díaz, Martha Arrivillaga de Carpio, Mario Arturo López Arrivillaga, Sydney