7 the State declared that, “according to the available forensic information, it has not been proved that any type of torture occurred during the capture and death of Saúl Cantoral and Consuelo García-Santa Cruz.” 29. Regarding the alleged violation of Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Convention against Torture, the State indicated that “since there is insufficient evidence about the alleged torture to which the alleged victims may have been subjected and, also, since the unlawful activities described in the application cannot be attributed to State agents, [the said allegations] do not entail the international responsibility of the State.” 30. With respect to the determination of victims, the State requested that the Court “take into account the documentary evidence authenticating the relationship and preexistence of the next of kin of the [alleged] victims indicated by the Commission on February 13, 1989” and, with regard to “the siblings of the [alleged] victim, Consuelo García-Santa Cruz, […it] requests that the close affective ties with the [alleged] victim be proved.” 31. With respect to its requests relating to reparations and costs, the State indicated that it “accepts the publication of the judgment that is delivered in a national newspaper” and that the Commission’s request “that a complete, impartial, effective and prompt investigation be conducted […] is not opposed by the State; to the contrary, it concurs with [the] effort […] to investigate the facts and not to allow them to remain unpunished.” B) Arguments of the Inter-American Commission and of the representatives concerning the State’s partial acknowledgement of responsibility 32. The Commission indicated that the State “had not disputed the basic circumstances of time, manner and place in which the [alleged] victims were kidnapped and the way in which their bodies were found. The State does dispute that the said executions could be attributed to State agents. Also, the State does not dispute the flaws in the investigation and, at times, the total absence of an investigation that characterized this case from the date of the executions until the re-opening of the investigations in 2001. The Peruvian State has also accepted that this lack of investigation has caused profound suffering to the next of kin of [the alleged victims].” 33. The representatives stated that “[i]n its answer to the application, the State admits that, 18 years after the facts occurred, there is only a preliminary investigation (investigación fiscal) re-opened in 2001 on the initiative of the next of kin of the [alleged] victims.” The representatives indicated that they “recognized and appreciated the State’s acknowledgement that the close next of kin of [the alleged victims] are victims with the right to receive reparation.” With regard to the State’s arguments (supra paras. 27 and 28), they maintained that it is not necessary to prove “[…] the suffering that the death of a person causes to their children[,…] spouse or companion[,…] parents and siblings […].” C) Extent of the persisting dispute concerning the facts in the present case 34. The Court appreciates the State’s partial acknowledgement of responsibility and, having examined this acknowledgement, and taking into account the arguments of the Commission and the representatives, the Court considers that the dispute persists in the terms described below.