6 alleged violation of Article 4 and the alleged failure to comply with Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention remains open, as well as the dispute over the corresponding facts. * * * 17. In turn, the Court observes that the State did not specifically confess the facts of the instant case in its partial acknowledgement of responsibility. Accordingly, considering that the application constitutes the factual framework of the proceedings8 and that the State only specifically contradicted the facts related to the circumstances in which the death of the three alleged victims occurred, this Tribunal considers that the acknowledgement of responsibility regarding the alleged violations of the aforementioned articles also involve an implicit acknowledgement of the facts which according to the application constituted those violations. 18. Furthermore, the Court takes into consideration that, pursuant to Article 38(2) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the respondent State shall declare, in its brief containing the answer to the application and comments on the brief on pleadings and motions, “whether it accepts the facts and claims or whether it contradicts them”, and the Court “may consider accepted those facts that have not been expressly denied and the claims that have not been expressly contested”. 19. As such, the Tribunal considers that the dispute over the facts referred to in the paragraphs of the application’s “Legal Arguments” chapter corresponding to the violations of Articles 8, 25 and 27 of the Convention has ended. These facts will be specified in the respective chapters of the instant Judgment. Therefore, the dispute over the rest of the facts of the instant case remains open. 20. The Court points out that two of the alleged victims’ family members referred to some facts which were not mentioned in the application, such as the infliction of electricity and the alleged illtreatment to which the alleged victims would have been subjected before being deprived of their life; some acts of ill-treatment to which the alleged victims’ family members would have been subjected; as well as the detention, on the day of the events and for the eight following days, of Ms. Silvia Alicia Macías Acosta, Mr. Segundo Olmedo Caicedo Cobeña’s partner. Those alleged facts might be analyzed in the lights of Articles 5 and 7 of the Convention. However, in its Report on the Admissibility and Merits of the case, the Commission expressly concluded that “[…] in the course of the proceedings [before the Commission,] violations of [the rights to humane treatment and to personal liberty] have not been proven[,… so that] the State did not controvert [the rights] set forth in Articles 5 and 7 of the Convention”. To conclude as such, the Commission considered, inter alia, the following: […] the Commission does not consider as proven that, previously to their death, the three persons to whom this matter refers to would have been subjected to ill-treatments or that their dignity would have been injured. […] the Commission observes that the evidence existing at the time of compiling [this] report is not sufficient to conclude that the petitioners were under “formal” custody of State agents before their execution. 21. The Court observes that the circumstances in which Ms. Macías Acosta would have been arrested on March 6, 1993, and the alleged acts of ill-treatment to which the family members would have been subjected at the time of the events, are not part of the object of the dispute in the instant case. With regard to the alleged acts of ill-treatment to which the alleged victims would Cf. Case of the "Mapiripán Massacre". Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 59. See also Case of Bueno-Alves. Judgment of May 11, 2007. para. 126, and Case of the Rochela Massacre, supra note 7, para. 30. 8