8 the kinship of these family members or raise any objection with regard to the emotional bonds that these family members would have had with the victims. Moreover, considering that the State acknowledged its responsibility in the instant case, the Court does not deem it necessary to analyze the evidence in this regard, since it presumes, on the grounds of the parties’ pleadings, that the family members mentioned by the Commission and the representatives effectively have the alleged emotional bonds11. * * * 27. The Court observes that the State did not make any comments in its partial acknowledgement of liability on the claims for reparations presented by the Inter-American Commission and the representatives. However, in the said public hearing, the State indicated that: There exists a breach of the Right to truth [… which] underlies Article[s] 8 and 25 of the American Convention […]. The State of Ecuador demonstrates its good faith in recognizing and protecting that right by means of a Truth Commission which has been established by the Executive, by the President of the Republic, and which will thoroughly investigate and collect all the documentary, expert and testimonial evidence necessary in order to start criminal proceedings[,] with respect for the due judicial guarantees[,] and in order mostly to guarantee the alleged victims’ right to truth. […] The [state of] emergency’s regime will be duly regulated and strictly monitored by the representatives who will participate in the next Constituent Assembly which is to take place in Ecuador. This has been an engagement assumed by the National Government, by the Attorney General's Office, which will present some bills and constitutional standards’ proposals restricting the indiscriminate use which can be made of the state of emergency in certain situations […]. The State reiterates its will to comply with the eventual reparation measures that the Inter-American Court may order. 28. The State reiterated these statements in its final written arguments, in which it added, inter alia, that: [t]he unintentional and accidental death resulting from this case deserve to be clarified, as they will surely be through the Truth Commission and consequently, the domestic Justice. The State of Ecuador assumes the responsibility to investigate and punish the responsible parties once the truth about what happened on the day of the events will have been established[; as such, the National Congress is currently debating a law for the attribution of responsibilities [(“ley de repetición de responsabilidad”]), which is intended to become a project for the execution of the Inter-American System’s judgments and for the attribution of responsibility by the State upon the responsible parties, if such would result from [a decision] on the merits of the case. Moreover, the State commits itself, through the Attorney General’s Office, to run a process of prevention, training and dissemination of an educational public policy in Human Rights for the public sector [.This] proceeding […] is actually in the process of being implemented through a “Handbook on Proceedings for the Public Sector” which will be disseminated nationally and in which civil society organizations, academic institutions and of course, the State of Ecuador, are intervening […]. 29. Notwithstanding the possible legal effects these statements might have, which will be determined in the corresponding chapter, the Court considers that the dispute over the claims for reparations and costs remains open. * 11 * Case of the Rochela Massacre, supra note 7, para. 45. *