9 massacre in 1989 and rejecting the claims about the context of the massacre, the State “also implicitly rejected a part of the jurisprudence of [the Inter-American] Court.” They alleged that “[t]his limitation has important consequences with regard to the Court’s findings with regard to the violation of Articles 8 and 25, as well as […] reparations […].” Moreover, the representatives noted that the State only acknowledged “a partial” violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, and that it denies the violation of Article 2. Finally, they indicated that “the legality and scope of the reparation measures and guarantees of non-repetition” are still in dispute. 27. During the public hearing, the representatives stated that there are “four contentious matters” in which the dispute underlying the present case may be summarized: [First,] the facts not acknowledged by the State regarding the context of the rise of the paramilitary phenomenon in the Magdalena Medio region and the training, coordination, and acts of concealment that occurred before and after that date. [Second,] the State has partially denied its responsibility regarding the violation of the right to effective judicial protection even though it has incurred grave violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. [Third], the State vehemently defends the legal framework of the paramilitary demobilization process and the means of implementing this process. Therefore it rejects all criticism of the normative framework upon which it is founded. [F]ourth, the compensation measures for medical and psychological treatment, measures to guarantee non-repetition, as well as some additional reparation measures not included in the partial agreement. 28. In their final arguments the representatives argued that the acknowledgment of responsibility is “insufficient in relation to the violation of Articles 4, 5, and 7 since the State seeks to limit the events of the massacre to ‘those that occurred in the month of January 1989´.” B) Extent of the remaining controversy 29. The Court finds that the partial acknowledgment of responsibility made by the State constitutes a positive contribution to the development of these proceedings. This acknowledgment also contributes to the proper functioning of the Inter-American human rights system in general, to the strength of the principles that inspire the American Convention, and to the conduct of the States in this sphere.11 After having examined the State’s acknowledgment and having taken into consideration the observations of the Commission and the representatives, the Court considers that controversy subsists in the terms expressed in the following paragraphs. Regarding the facts 30. The Court observes that the State acknowledged “the events which occurred [to the victims] on January 18, 1989.” Likewise, the State “acknowledges as valid some specific facts related to the massacre, which were presented by the representatives […] for which no reparation corresponds.” In these terms, and understanding that the application constitutes the factual framework of the proceedings,12 the Tribunal finds that the controversy has ceased with regard to the facts included in the application that refer to the events of January 18, 1989 which occurred to Mariela Morales Caro, Pablo Antonio Beltrán Palomino, Virgilio Hernández Serrano, Carlos Fernando Castillo Zapata, Luis Orlando Hernández 11 Cf. Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison, supra note 8, para. 148; Case of Vargas Areco, supra note 8, para. 65; and Case of Goiburú et al. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, para. 52. 12 Cf. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 59; Case of La Cantuta, supra note 8, para 51; Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 11, para 48; and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 55.