12 Commission’s application15 and a total acquiescence to the legal claims set out in both the Commission’s application and the pleadings and motions brief of the representatives on the merits of this matter. Furthermore, it highlighted the apology made to Gregoria Herminia Contreras, her siblings and her next of kin during the public hearing, which was made extensive to the other victims and their next of kin in this case; and the undertaking made by the State to advance the necessary measures of reparation by means of a permanent dialogue with representatives and using the criteria to be established by the Court. All these actions make a positive contribution to this process, to the exercise of the principles that inspire the American Convention16 and, in part, to the satisfaction of the needs for reparation of the victims of human rights violations.17 27. Based on the above, the Court finds that the dispute between the parties with regard to the forced disappearance of Gregoria Herminia, Serapio Cristian and Julia Inés Contreras, Ana Julia and Carmelina Mejía Ramírez, and José Rubén Rivera has ended, and also with regard to the violation of the rights recognized in the following Articles: 3 (Right to Juridical Personality), 4 (Right to Life), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), 17 (Rights of the Family), 18 (Right to a Name), 19 (Rights of the Child), and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Gregoria Herminia, Serapio Cristian and Julia Inés Contreras, Ana Julia and Carmelina Mejía Ramírez, and José Rubén Rivera; and Articles 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), 13 (Freedom of Thought and Expression), 17 (Rights of the Family) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the next of kin of Gregoria Herminia, Serapio Cristian and Julia Inés Contreras, Ana Julia and Carmelina Mejía Ramírez, and José Rubén Rivera: María Maura Contreras (mother), Fermín Recinos Ayala (father), Julia Gregoria Recinos Contreras (sister), Marta Daysi Leiva Contreras (sister), Nelson Geovany Contreras (brother, deceased), Rubén de Jesús López Contreras (brother), Sara Margarita López Contreras (sister), Santos Antonio López Contreras (brother); Arcadia Ramírez Portillo (mother), Avenicio Portillo (brother), María Nely Portillo (sister), Santos Verónica Portillo (sister), Reina Dionila Portillo de Silva (aunt), Margarita Dolores Rivera de Rivera (mother), Agustín Antonio Rivera Gálvez (father), Juan Carlos Rivera (brother deceased), Agustín Antonio Rivera Rivera (brother), José Daniel Rivera Rivera (brother), Milton Rivera Rivera (brother), Irma Cecilia Rivera Rivera (sister) and Cándida Marisol Rivera Rivera (sister). 28. Lastly, considering the seriousness of the facts and of the violations acknowledged by the State, the Court will make an extensive and detailed determination of the facts that occurred, because this contributes to the reparation of the victims, to preventing the repetition of similar acts and, in brief, to satisfying the purposes of the inter-American human rights jurisdiction.18 In addition, the Court will open the corresponding chapters to analyze and clarify the scope of the violations, based on the characteristics of this practice perpetrated against children in the Salvadoran context. Finally, with regard to certain claims 15 Although the State did not specify the facts that it accepted as grounds for its acknowledgement of responsibility with regard to Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, this Court understands that El Salvador accepted the facts that, according to the application - factual framework of these proceedings - constitute those violations. 16 Cf. Case of El Caracazo v. Venezuela. Merits. Judgment of November 11, 1999. Series C No. 58, para. 43; Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011. Series C No. 221, para. 29, and Case of Vélez Loor, supra note 13, para. 69. 17 Cf. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas, supra note14, para. 18, and Case of Vélez Loor, supra note 13, para. 69. 18 Cf. Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2008. Series C No. 190, para. 26.