percentage points lower than that in the year in which the case was condemned internationally and it pointed out that, according to the Working Group to Examine Periodic National Reports under the Protocol of San Salvador, the advances made by the State indicate that it has implemented the appropriate measures. 16. The Commission welcomed the State’s recognition of international responsibility, which encompasses the totality of the facts and the violations declared in the Merits Report and stated that it is a positive contribution to the development of the process and to the restoration of the victims’ dignity. It also approved the State’s position, which is consistent with that taken at the stage prior to the submission of the case. It requested that the Court declare the facts as proven and include them in the judgment due to the importance that they have for the victims in establishing the truth of what occurred. 17. The representative asked that the Court’s judgment declare the State’s international responsibility for violating the American Convention and the Convention of Belém do Pará and that it order full reparation for violating the rights declared in the Merits Report. He also requested that the transcendence of the requested ruling be taken into account in aligning domestic laws, judicial decisions and administrative and practical programs. B. Considerations of the Court B.1 The facts 18. Argentina expressly recognized the facts presented in the Merits Report, which are the basis of the human rights violations recognized by the State. Those facts refer to (i) the death of Cristina Brítez Arce and (ii) the domestic proceedings regarding the case. Consequently, the Court considers that there is no longer any controversy on the factual framework of the case. B.2 The issues of law 19. The Court notes that the State accepted the claims that appear in the Report on the Merits. Recognition of responsibility expressly encompasses each violation of the Convention referred to by the Commission. With respect to the violations of Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará, the Court understands that such recognition refers to violations that occurred or continued to occur on or after the date of the State’s ratification of that treaty. Therefore, the Court holds that there is no longer a controversy on: a. The violation of Articles 4(1), 5(1) and 26 of the American Convention (rights to life, to personal integrity and to health), read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Cristina Brítez Arce. b. The violation of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention (rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection), read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, and of Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará, the latter as of July 5, 1996, to the detriment of Ezequiel Martín Avaro and Vanina Verónica Avaro. c. The violation of Article 5(1) of the American Convention (right to personal integrity), read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Ezequiel Martín Avaro and Vanina Verónica Avaro. B.3 The eventual reparations 7