16 responsibility derived from the failure to comply with Articles 2, 3, and 13 of the Convention.” 55. It shall be pointed out that with regard to the alleged violation to Article 4 (Right to Life) of the American Convention in detriment of Mr. Rosendo Radilla, the State did not express acknowledgment of its violation; however, it indicated that his death was presumed (supra para. 44). In this sense, it stated that “[e]ven though in the present case there is no convincing evidence proving that Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco was deprived of his life, the impossibility to obtain conclusive evidence, is not an obstacle to assume that […] he has not passed away. On the contrary, being consistent with the criteria of the […] Court, after 34 years without obtaining news of [his] whereabouts or fate […], it is reasonable to presume he has passed away.” 56. The acknowledgment of responsibility expressed was reiterated during the public hearing held in the present case (supra para. 9), in which the State’s representative indicated that: The State’s position is still the same as the one included in the respondent’s plea, there has been no variation in this sense. What the State […] made emphasis on was the fact that Mexico does not object the facts and, taking into account the jurisprudence of [… the] Court, it can currently presume, with regret, that Mr. Rosendo Radilla has passed away. 57. With regard to the reparations requested, the State reiterated the proposal of comprehensive reparation presented during the process before the Commission. In what refers to the publication of the judgment, if it were a conviction, the State indicated it would submit to what the Court decided. Regarding the costs and expenses, it indicated that the Rules of Procedure of the Court state that said item will be included in the judgment, if it proceeds, which implies that not in all cases said items will be accepted or have to be satisfied. Thus, the State opposed certain expenses requested by the representatives of the alleged victims. 58. Regarding the universe of victims, beneficiaries of the reparations “[t]he State, in good faith, acknowledge[d] the family relationship of […] Tita, Andrea, and Rosendo, all of the surnames Radilla Martínez. […] However, it request[ed] that the […] Court […] not consider Victoria Martínez Neri, Romana, Evelina, Rosa, Agustina, Ana María, Carmen, Pilar, Victoria, or Judith, all of the surnames Radilla Martínez, as victims in the present case since they were not presented as such by the Commission at the correct procedural moment.” Additionally, the State argued that in the present case “there is no reason for a reparation of a collective nature.” The State indicated that “[t]here is no causal relationship whatsoever between the alleged violations to Mr. Radilla’s rights and […] the alleged infringements to the community of Atoyac de Álvarez”. 59. The Inter-American Commission indicated that “[w]ithout dismissing the value and importance of the acknowledgment of responsibility made by the State […], starting with its four preliminary objections, several of the arguments made […] by the State […] contest[ed] the facts supposedly acknowledged.” In this sense, the Commission requested that the Court decide in the judgment the matters that remain in litigation. The representatives, on their part, indicated several facts regarding which they considered the State had accepted its responsibility and requested that the Tribunal decide on their scope. 60. Pursuant with Articles 56(2) and 58 of the Rules of Procedure,39 and in exercise of its powers of international judicial protection of human rights, the Court can determine if an 39 In what is relevant, Articles 56(2) and 58 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court state that: