18. In the instant case, the Court observes that the State expressly acknowledged the facts related to the forced disappearance of Edgar Fernando García (supra para. 13.a.1). The State did not specifically and expressly acknowledge the other facts described in the Commission’s Merits Report or in the representatives’ motions and arguments brief, nor did it clarify the facts submitted to the Court that substantiate its partial acknowledgment of responsibility. However, as it has in other cases, 14 the Court understands that the State has acknowledged all the facts that substantiate the violations for which it has “totally accept[ed]” its international responsibility. Consequently, the Court considers that the dispute has ceased as regards the forced disappearance of Edgar Fernando García and the resulting violation of Articles 3, 4, 5, 7, 13 and 16, in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention and to Article 1(a) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance, to the detriment of Edgar Fernando García. 19. The Court also observes that the dispute remains with regard to the alleged violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof and Article I (b), (c) and (d), and Article II of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance, as well as the alleged violation of the right to know the truth, to the detriment of Edgar Fernando García and the members of his family. The dispute also persists with regard to the alleged violation of Articles 5, 13, 16, 17, 19 and 23 of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, Article II of the InterAmerican Convention on Forced Disappearance, and the alleged autonomous violation of Article 2 of the Convention, to the detriment of Nineth Varenca Montenegro Cottom, Alejandra García Montenegro and María Emilia García. 20. Furthermore, the Court observes that the State has contested the presumed violation of Articles 12 and 18 of the American Convention, supposedly alleged by the representatives. In this regard, the Court observes that in the motions and arguments brief and in their final written arguments, the representatives erroneously indicated that the right to freedom of expression and the rights of the child were established in Articles 12 and 18 of the American Convention, respectively. 15 However, the Court considers that the text of both briefs reveals that the reference to Articles 12 and 18 was a factual error of the representatives, because the legal grounds and the text of their arguments (with the exception of the numbers of the said articles) were based on the alleged violation of the right to freedom of expression and the rights of the child. The Court has ruled on the status of the dispute in relation to these alleged violations supra. 21. In addition, the Court observes that the State contested the inclusion of Mario Alcides Polando Pérez and Andrea Polanco Montenegro as presumed victims in this case (supra para. 13.d). The Court advises that it will rule on the status of the said persons as presumed victims in the corresponding prior consideration in chapter V, infra. 22. The Court finds that the State’s partial acknowledgement of responsibility represents a positive contribution to these proceedings and the exercise of the principles underlying the 14 Cf. Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009. Series C No. 196, para. 25; Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 62; Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2010. Series C No. 218, para. 64, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and reparations. Judgment of June 27, 2012. Series C No. 245, para. 27. 15 These articles of the Convention correspond to the right to freedom of conscience and religion (Article 12) and the right to a name (Article 18). 10