9 settlement which the State has complied and continues to comply with[, therefore] the controversy with regards to the facts that originated the case has ceased.” It added that “the subject of the application filed by the [Commission] is to analyze the status of compliance with the friendly settlement agreement concluded by the parties, specifically in relation to the measures adopted to redress the infringement [to the aforementioned Articles,] and not to condemn the State for the facts and claims which already figure in the friendly settlement process.” The State concluded that the scope of the Commission’s application must extend only and exclusively to the measures of the agreement that were allegedly not complied with in relation to the agreement, therefore the representatives’ request to broaden the subject of the application should be dismissed.” In its final pleadings the State “reiterate[d] its position […] with regard to the acknowledgment of the claims […] of violation […] of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention,” without further referring to claims aiming to limit the competence of the Court in that regard, and reiterated that Guatemala has expressed “its recognition of institutional responsibility” on three occasions. 23. With regard to the reparations, the State indicated that it “committed to make several reparations to the [alleged] surviving victims and the next of kin of those deceased in the Massacre,” and added that the measures pending compliance were related to performing a serious and effective investigation, as well as providing medical and psychological treatment to the surviving victims and next of kin of those deceased in the massacre. 24. The Commission expressed that it took note of the partial recognition of responsibility expressed by Guatemala, and that it valued it as a measure that may contribute to a better resolution of the case. However, it observed that “this acceptance of partial responsibility differs from the one previously expressed in the framework of the process before the [Commission], and derives from an interpretation of the facts different from the one presented in the application,” based on which it invoked the application of the estoppel principle. Likewise, the Commission pointed out that what the State expressed “does not change the conclusion based on the facts of the case and in the interpretation of the law, that Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention were breached[,] and that the general obligation of Article 1(1) of the same instrument was not complied with[, which] still hold true.” In the public hearing, the Commission expressed that during the proceedings before it the State acknowledged its responsibility for the facts occurred in the community of Las Dos Erres, and that such recognition was not subject of controversy, therefore it requested the Court to consider the facts as proven and to include them in the judgment on the merits. 25. With regards to the reparations, the Commission reiterated its request to the Court to order the State to “effectively complete the investigations[, as well as] to adopt rehabilitation measures for the victims[, and] a policy of permanent training in human rights and international humanitarian law for the personnel of the Armed Forces.” 26. The representatives argued that the terms of the State’s recognition of responsibility in the answer to the application “[were] extremely confusing, as there is a series of contradictions”, given that the State recognizes that it cannot excuse itself from the responsibility related to acts or omissions of its judicial authorities, however it submits certain pleadings which aim to disprove its responsibility for the delay in justice. The representatives concluded that the contradictions “inhibit the determination of the real extent of the acknowledgement of responsibility[,] and do not contribute to the reparations to the [alleged] victims, nor to the acknowledgement of the Guatemalan society of that occurred to the [alleged] victims of the Las Dos Erres Massacre.” They added that such recognition “does not allow the