- 10 - their right to honor owing to declarations made against them by senior State officials. The State has not acknowledged the alleged violation of Articles 5 and 22 of the Convention in relation to the alleged exile undergone by Iván Cepeda, María Cepeda and Claudia Girón. Consequently, the Court notes that the dispute between the parties subsists in relation to the facts and the legal claims concerning these alleged violations of the Convention; therefore it must rule in this regard. 21. In addition, the State partially acknowledged its responsibility for the violation of Articles 8, 25 and 1(1) of the Convention, by accepting that “the investigation had exceeded a reasonable time and the masterminds of Manuel Cepeda’s death had still not been identified.” Nevertheless, some aspects remain in dispute between the parties, in particular regarding the alleged ineffectiveness of the disciplinary and administrative-law proceedings; the due diligence in the criminal investigations and the alleged obstacles to the investigation owing to the demobilization of members of the paramilitary groups, and these will be analyzed by the Court. Furthermore, a dispute continues with regard to the alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention. 22. Regarding the claims for reparations, the State accepted that the presumed victim and his next of kin are the injured parties, recognized its obligation to make reparation for the violations acknowledged, indicated some measures that it had taken or that it offers to take and, also, asked that this Court take into a account the reparations awarded to some of the next of kin in the domestic sphere. However, the Commission and the representatives questioned some aspects of the results obtained in this regard, so that the dispute subsists in relation to all the other forms of reparation requested by the Commission and the representatives. Hence, the Court will make the necessary ruling. 23. Accordingly, the Court finds it must deliver a judgment in which it determines the facts and all the subsisting aspects of the merits and possible reparations, as well as the corresponding consequences, because the delivery of the judgment helps make reparation to the next of kin of Manuel Cepeda Vargas, avoid a repetition of similar facts and, in brief, satisfy the purposes of the inter-American jurisdiction on human rights.22 III PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 24. The State filed four preliminary objections and indicated that the purpose of the first two was to “limit the factual framework of the instant case” in order to exclude from the Court’s analysis “all the facts that are pending a decision in the case of the Patriotic Union,” particularly the alleged systematic pattern of violence against its members. The Court will therefore examine the first two objections together; it will then do the same with the remaining two objections. 25. The Commission stated that it was contradictory to make an acknowledgement of responsibility, while simultaneously questioning the Court’s jurisdiction to rule on the case by filing preliminary objections. The representatives considered that, in the instant case, there was no inconsistency between these procedural actions because 22 Cf. “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 69; Case of Kimel v. Argentina, supra note 15, para. 28, and Bueno Alves v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 164, para. 35.