Convention (the right to protection of the family and the rights of the child), they held the acknowledgment to be “insufficient”. They also stated that, for the acknowledgement to be “acceptable,” it would have been “important for the State to have explicitly acknowledged the failure to uphold Articles 5(1) and 5(2) with a differential approach to gender,” in relation to Candelaria Nuris Vergara Carriazo, Mr. Movilla’s wife. They also argued that the acknowledgment of responsibility regarding the right to the truth was not clear. They asked the Court to “study the autonomous violations of the rights to the truth, and to search for and find disappeared persons.” 23. In relation to the investigative actions, the representatives maintained that the State's acknowledgment of responsibility was “generic,” since it failed to explain “the specific causes of the delays.” Furthermore, contrary to the State’s position, they affirmed that there were investigative failures on the part of the Inspector General’s Office (and not only the Prosecutor’s Office), and that “there was a deliberate omission by the institutions that carried out the investigations that persists to this day,” as reflected in different facts of the case.9 24. With respect to the limited nature of Colombia’s acknowledgment of responsibility (supra paras. 15 and 19), the representatives went on to say, firstly, that the acknowledgment should cover all the alleged victims identified in the Merits Report and the pleadings and motions brief. They also took the view that the State’s attempt to limit the acknowledgment to the years before 2019 was not appropriate, since “although progress has been made with the investigations since then, it did not occur because the State complied with its international obligations, but rather because of the Inter-American Commission’s decision, set out in the Merits Report.” Moreover, they affirmed that “despite the investigative work carried out, no palpable results have been achieved in the nearly 30 years that have elapsed since the forced disappearance of Pedro Julio Movilla.” 25. Lastly, the representatives noted that, although the State had declared its commitment to full reparation for the victims, “it failed to play an active part in the measures to be implemented” and did not propose “appropriate reparation formulas.” 26. The Commission regarded the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility as a positive development. It noted that it was partial, and observed that it implied “acceptance of the facts related to the obligation to guarantee [the protection of rights],” and therefore asked the Court to consider the facts proven. B) Considerations of the Court 27. In accordance with Articles 62 and 64 of its Rules of Procedure, and in exercise of its authority for the international judicial protection of human rights, a matter of international public order, this Court must ensure that acts of acknowledgement of responsibility are acceptable for the purposes of the inter-American system.10 The Court will now examine the situation in this specific case. They highlighted the following: the FGN’s suspension of the investigation on at least two occasions, the disqualification of the representatives for several years from participating in the criminal proceedings as a civil party, the “non-existence of a search plan after 30 years” and the “failure to respond and carry out evidentiary activities in accordance with the requests made by the […] representatives”; situations, they claimed, that “ensured impunity.” 10 Cf. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 17; and Case of Digna Ochoa and family members v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2021. Series C No. 447, para. 18. 9 8