12 51. The Court considers that there is no longer a controversy as regards to the facts alleged in the application, which are considered proved pursuant to paragraph 60 of this Judgment. iii) Admission by the State regarding the issues of law 52. The Court considers it advisable to allow the acknowledgement of international responsibility made by the State for the violation of the rights embodied in Article 4(1) (Right to Life), and Articles 5(1), 5(2) and 5(4) (Right to Humane Treatment) of the American Convention, regarding Article 1(1) of same, in detriment of the 37 people identified in paragraph 60(26) of this Judgment, for the excessive use of force against them, for the detention conditions that they had to endure during the time they were in custody at the Detention Center of Catia, and for the failure to classify them as either convicts or detainees pending trial. 53. Likewise, this Court admits the acknowledgement of responsibility made by the State for the violation of the rights embodied in Article 5(1) (Right to Humane Treatment), Article 8(1) (Right to a Fair Trial) and Article 25 (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, as regards to Article 1(1) of the same, in detriment of the next of kin of the victims, who are identified in paragraph 60(26) of this Judgment, for the pain and suffering they endured, for the lack of due diligence in the investigation of the events and for the difficulty they faced to get access to the domestic court records. 54. Finally, the Court admits the acknowledgement of responsibility made by the State for the failure to comply with the obligation imposed by Article 2 of the American Convention, for the failure to suppress from its legislation all the provisions that grant military courts jurisdiction to investigate violations of human rights committed by the Guardia Nacional (National Guard), and for the failure to develop policies tending to make the penitentiary system more professional in order to provide security to prison facilities. 55. As regards to the alleged violation of the right to the truth, the Court considers that this is not an autonomous right embodied in Articles 8, 13, 25 and 1(1) of the Convention, as it has been pointed out by the representatives. Therefore, the Court does not confirm the acknowledgement of responsibility by the State in this regard. The right to the truth is included in the right of the victim or his next of kin to get, from the competent State authorities, the truth about the wrongful acts and the identification of those responsible therefor, through an investigation and the prosecution of the responsible persons.6 iv) Admission by the State as regards to the claims for reparations 56. The Court considers that the admission of the State regarding the claims for reparations filed by the Inter-American Commission and by the representatives, which are stated in detail in Chapter XI of this Judgment, should be allowed. * 6 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 219; Case of Blanco-Romero et al, supra note 3, para. 62, and Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters, Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C No. 120, para. 62.