21 and those that result proven from the totality of elements that appear in the case file. 2) Regarding the legal claims 64. In attention to the acknowledgment of responsibility made by the State (supra paras. 16, 54, 55, and 60), the Court considers as established the facts referred to in paragraphs 79(1) and 79(60) of this Judgment and, based on them and weighing in the circumstances of the case, proceeds to precise the different violations found against the articles claimed. 65. The Court considers that it its convenient to admit the acknowledgment of international responsibility made by the State for the alleged violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 4(1) (Right to Life); 5(1) and 5(2) (Right to Humane Treatment); 7(1), 7(2), 7(3), 7(4), 7(5), and 7(6) (Right to Personal Liberty), 8(1) and 8(2) (Right to a Fair Trial), and 25(1) (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in detriment of Marco Antonio Servellón García, Rony Alexis Betancourth Vásquez, Diomedes Obed García Sánchez, and Orlando Álvarez Ríos, as well as the violation of Articles 5(5) (Right to Humane Treatment), 7(5) (Right to Personal Liberty), and 19 (Rights of the Child) of the Convention, in detriment of the minors Marco Antonio Servellón García and Rony Alexis Betancourth Vásquez. @66. Likewise, this Tribunal admits the acknowledgment of international responsibility made by the State in relation to the alleged violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in detriment of the next of kin of Marco Antonio Servellón García, Rony Alexis Betancourth Vásquez, Orlando Álvarez Ríos, and Diomedes Obed García Sánchez. 67. However, the Court points out that the State did not refer in its assent to the alleged violation of Article 5 of the Convention, in detriment of the next of kin of the alleged victims. 3) Regarding the reparations 68. In the respondent’s plea the State indicated that “it assent[ed] to the parts of the petition related to those regretful facts, accepting the measures of reparation proposed by the petitioners and promising to comply faithfully in the least time possible with what [the…] Court decides to order in this sense […].” However, at the same time the State made considerations regarding the implementation of some of the measures requested by the Commission and the representatives, by stating, for example, that “the Public Prosecutors’ Office continues to develop important efforts for the persecution and sanction of the perpetrators and planners of the arrest and death [of the alleged victims],” and that it has elaborated the National Plan for the Attention of Children and Teenagers 2002-2010, which must serve as the framework document for the State’s public policies. 69. In this regard, the Inter-American Commission pointed out that the State made several affirmations, that “even though they show an appreciable statement from [it] to repair the next of kin of the [alleged] victims, it does not constitute an assent to the demands presented for them to the Court” and stated that “the next of kin of the [alleged] victims specified their demands for different aspects in a very