(“Diario Militar”) v. Guatemala be transferred to and taken into account in this case. Also, during the hearing, witness Velia Muralles Bautista presented documentation from the Historical Archive of the National Police related to this case, which was handed to the parties and to the Commission. 12. On May 31, 2012, the representatives and the State forwarded their final written arguments, while the Inter-American Commission presented its final written observations on June 1, 2012. On that occasion, the State again submitted a copy of the agreement reached by the parties on the measures of reparation, and the Inter-American Commission repeated its request to transfer the opinion of witness Marco Tulio Álvarez Bobadilla (supra paras. 11). III PARTIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND ENDORSEMENT OF THE AGREEMENT ON REPARATIONS A) The State’s partial acknowledgement of responsibility 13. The State partially acknowledged its international responsibility in this case as follows: a) Regarding the claims made by the representatives and the Inter-American Commission in this case, the State expressed its “total acceptance” of: 1. “the events denounced in relation to the supposed violation of the human rights contained in Articles 3 […], 4 […], 5 […] and 7 […] of the American Convention,” in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument. It also indicated that it considered that it “had failed to comply with the obligation contained in Article I(a) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance” to the detriment of Edgar Fernando García; 2. Articles 13 and 16 of the American Convention, in relation of Article 1(1) of this instrument, “only with regard to Edgar Fernando García.” b) In addition, it expressed its “partial acceptance” of the alleged violations of: 1. Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, to the detriment of Edgar Fernando García, Nineth Varenca Montenegro Cottom, Alejandra García Montenegro and María Emilia García; 2. Article 5 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Nineth Varenca Montenegro Cottom, Alejandra García Montenegro and María Emilia García; 3. Articles 13(1), 13(2) and 23 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, for presumed violation of the right of access to information, to the detriment of Nineth Varenca Montenegro Cottom, Alejandra García Montenegro and María Emilia García. However, it expressed “its opposition to [the Court] declaring non-compliance” with Article 2 of the American Convention, due to the fact “that various domestic laws guarantee the full exercise of the said rights,” and 4. Articles 13 and 16 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Nineth Varenca Montenegro Cottom, Alejandra García Montenegro and María Emilia García. This partial acceptance was made 7