ordered the release of Mr. Morales because he had already served the prison term. 46 It determined that “(…) the conduct displayed by (…) Luis Raúl Morales Rodríguez was not intended to cause any harm (…) he fired his weapon in the aforementioned manner, which resulted in the negligent deprivation of the right to life of the civilian Mirey Trueba Arciniega.” 47 39. On September 17, 2002, an agreement was signed by the representatives of the Secretariat for National Defense and José Tomás Trueba Loera, in which the latter was given reparation for the pain and suffering and physical damages in the amount of $117,822.00 (one hundred and seventeen thousand eight hundred and twenty-two Mexican pesos). Furthermore, the agreement indicated that Mr. Trueba Loera “receives the aforementioned amount to his full satisfaction (…) thus considering the compensation paid (…) and he does not reserve the right to any present or future civil action against the State (…), notwithstanding the criminal liability of the defendants currently undergoing the criminal proceedings.” 48 40. The judgment of the Supreme Military Court of January 19, 2001, was made final. 49 The Commission expressed that it has no information on the other investigations related to the medical care that Mirey Trueba Arciniega could have received. VI. SANCTIONING OF THE FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 41. As mentioned above, the terms of the agreement include the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility for the human rights violations indicated by the Inter-American Commission in the Report on Merits (supra para. 18). In view of the foregoing, the Court considers that the dispute has ceased regarding the facts (supra para. 20). In addition, the Court understands that the dispute has ceased regarding the arguments on the violation of: Article 4(1) right to life and Article 5(1) humane treatment of the American Convention, in connection with Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Mirey Trueba Arciniega; and the violation of Article 5(1) humane treatment, Article 8(1) right to a fair trial and Article 25(1) judicial protection of the Convention to the detriment of the next of kin of Mirey Trueba. 50 42. The Court considers that the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility is a positive contribution to the development of these proceedings and to the effectiveness of the principles that inspire the American Convention. Similarly, the Inter-American Commission has assessed the agreement reached by the parties and considers the requested sanctioning to be appropriate (supra para. 13). The Court holds that the friendly settlement agreement complies with the formal and material requirements mentioned above, to the extent that it has been subscribed by the parties to the dispute, who had the opportunity to submit their 46 Cf. Brief of August 24, 2004, by the State addressed to the IACHR (brief containing evidence, folio 125). Brief of observations by the State on case No. 12,659 Mirey Trueba Arciniega of June 19, 2009, addressed to the IACHR (brief containing evidence, folio 26). 47 48 Agreement of September 17, 2002, subscribed by members of the State and José Tomás Trueba (brief containing evidence, folios 176 and 177). 49 Cf. Brief of August 24, 2004, by the State addressed to the IACHR (brief containing evidence, folio 149). These are: his mother Micaela Arciniega, his father José Tomás Loera, and his brothers Vidal Trueba Arciniega, Elías Trueba Arciniega, Tomás Trueba Arciniega, Eleazar Heric Trueba Arciniega, Eduardo Trueba Molina and Samuel Trueba Arciniega. 50 12