16 (a) The alleged violation of Article 5(1) (Right to Humane Treatment) of the Convention, to the detriment of the persons executed and their next of kin; and also of the alleged victims of forced displacement, forced labor, and loss of their property who were not included in the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility (supra paras. 60 and 61); (b) The alleged violation of Article 6 (Freedom from Slavery) of the Convention, to the detriment of the alleged victims who were obliged to herd livestock following the events of El Aro (supra para. 60); (c) The alleged violation of Article 7 (Right to Personal Liberty) of the Convention, to the detriment of the persons who were allegedly deprived of their liberty during the events of El Aro, who were indicated by the representatives in their requests and arguments brief (supra para. 61), and who were not included in the State’s acquiescence (supra paras. 19, 59, 63 and 64); (d) The alleged violation of Article 19 (Rights of the Child) of the Convention to the detriment of the child, Wilmar De Jesús Restrepo Torres, and of “the other children who were direct victims of the violent behavior of the paramilitary group and the agents of the Colombian State in the municipal districts of La Granja and El Aro and also of the other children, members of the families who were victims of the violations committed during these events” (supra paras. 60, 61 and 75); (e) The alleged violation of Article 21 (Right to Property) of the Convention, to the detriment of the persons indicated by the representatives in their requests and arguments brief (supra para. 18), who were not included in the State’s acquiescence (supra paras. 19, 59, 63, 64 and 77), as well as “all the [alleged] victims who lost their property and their livelihood in El Aro, and who are listed in detail in the brief of helpful evidence requested by the Court, in the [representatives’ brief with final arguments in the] attachment with concluding arguments, and in the section on reparations” (supra para. 75); (f) The alleged violation of Article 22 (Freedom of Movement and Residence) of the Convention to the detriment of “724 persons who have been individualized,” who were displaced as a result of the facts of the instant case (supra para. 75); (g) The facts relating to an alleged violation of Articles 8(1) (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25(1) (Right to Judicial Protection) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of all the alleged victims and their next of kin; and (h) The determination of reparations and costs (supra para. 73). * * *