4 expert witness offered by the representatives of the victim and his next of kin: Alicia Neuburger. 12. In the course of the first part of the public hearing and in its April 26, 2004 brief, the State expressed that it withdrew the preliminary objections filed and it acknowledged its international responsibility in the instant case. 13. On that same day, April 26, 2004 the Inter-American Commission and the representatives of the victim and his next of kin, respectively, stated during the first public hearing that they accepted the acknowledgment of responsibility made by the State. 14. That same day, April 26, 2004, the Court issued an Order in which it ruled that it deemed all the preliminary objections filed by the State to have been withdrawn; it accepted the acknowledgment of international responsibility made by the State, and it decided to continue the public hearing summoned by the March 1, 2004 Order of the President, as well as to limit its subject-matter to reparations and costs. It proceeded with the second part of the public hearing, during which it heard the statements of the witnesses and expert witnesses summoned and the final oral pleadings of the Inter-American Commission, of the representatives of the victim and his next of kin, and of the State. 15. On May 4, 2004 the Court issued its judgment on the merits, in which it decided, unanimously, 1. To uphold its April 26, 2004 Order, in which it deemed that all the preliminary objections filed by the State had been withdrawn and it accepted the State’s acknowledgment of international responsibility. 2. To find that the facts that gave rise to the instant case are no longer in dispute. 3. To find, in accordance with the acknowledgment of international responsibility made by the State and the facts established, that the State abridged the rights set forth in Articles 4(1) (Right to Life), 5(1) and 5(2) (Right to Humane Treatment), 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 8 (Right to Fair Trial), 17 (Rights of the Family), 19 (Rights of the Child) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights, and that it failed to comply with the obligations set forth in Articles 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) and 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) of that same Convention, to the detriment of Marco Antonio Molina Theissen; the State also failed to comply with the obligation set forth in Articles I and II of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons to the detriment of Marco Antonio Molina Theissen, pursuant to paragraph 43 of the […] Judgment. 4. To find, in accordance […] with the facts that were established, that [the State] abridged the rights set forth in Articles, 5(1) and 5(2) (Right to Humane Treatment); 8 (Right to Fair Trial); 17 (Rights of the Family), and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights, and that it failed to comply with the obligations set forth in Articles 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) and 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) of that same Convention, to the detriment of the next of kin of Marco Antonio Molina Theissen: Emma Theissen Álvarez Vda. de Molina (the mother), Carlos Augusto Molina Palma (the deceased father), Emma Guadalupe, Ana Lucrecia and María Eugenia Molina Theissen (siblings), pursuant to paragraph 44 of the […] Judgment. 5. 16. To continue hearing the instant case in the reparations and legal costs stage. The State filed its final written pleadings on May 24, 2004.