[…] rejects the accusations regarding the existence of an enforced disappearance, and in that sense [states that] the facts used to describe the existence of an enforced disappearance are not attributable to the State. However, it is undeniable that the events that form part of this case constitute a crime perpetrated by individuals; such crime should have been investigated and sanctioned by the Ecuadorian State. Although procedures were initiated, they are still ongoing and so far, have not yielded results. Therefore, the State acknowledges that it has not fulfilled its obligation to investigate and sanction, and for that reason acknowledges its responsibility under Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention on Human Rights. […] 15. On the same occasion, the State added that: […] although investigations were carried out, inquiries were made, and the criminal investigation process was initiated, these inquiries have not been sufficient, and additionally, at the time, in his judicial review, the judge found what could be called negligent performance by the Prosecutor's Office, and that negligent performance is what determined the provisional stay of proceedings, and that is why the Ecuadorian State acknowledges its responsibility. 16. Subsequently, in its final written arguments, it claimed that: The State reiterates its legal position that the events of the case do not constitute an enforced disappearance; however, it acknowledges [that] a criminal offense occurred for which private individuals were responsible, but the events of this case have not been investigated with the requisite due diligence to determine the corresponding responsibilities and criminal sanctions. Consequently: the State of Ecuador acknowledges its international responsibility for the violation of rights enshrined in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument. 17. Likewise, with regard to reparations, the State highlighted its efforts to comply with the recommendations included in the Report on the Merits and requested that the Court "declare that it is not appropriate to order reparations in favor of the alleged victim, as the non-existence of damages has been evidenced [...], as well as the absence of any evidentiary support." 18. The representative did not comment on the partial acceptance of facts and partial acknowledgement of responsibility made by the State. 19. The Commission, in turn, positively valued the partial acknowledgement of responsibility by the State of Ecuador. However, the Commission pointed out that it did not have detailed information about its scope. Insofar as "the public hearing does not indicate whether the admission of the violation of such rights includes all the factual and legal issues presented by the [Commission] before [the] Court on such aspects, particularly on compliance with its obligations in i) the investigation into the victim's disappearance; and ii) in the search process for his whereabouts." B. Considerations of the Court 20. The Court will analyze the situation presented in keeping with Articles 62 and 64 of the Rules and in the exercise of its powers of international judicial protection of human rights, –a -7-