13 and Dora Oyague-Fierro (supra para. 41.) Even though the State acknowledged the alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention, the Court will analyze it in the pertinent section (infra paras. 117 to 121.) 53. Furthermore, part of the controversy on the international responsibility of the State for the violation of the rights enshrined in Article 8 (Right to Fair Trial) and 25 (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, with relation to Article 1(1) thereof, has also been settled. Nevertheless, the State alleged that it could not be attributed any responsibility for other aspects related to the “alleged lack of diligence of the State [...] for not having conducted a serious, impartial and effective investigation within a reasonable time” in order to decide the case and punish the perpetrators of the wrongful acts (supra paras. 41, 42 and 44.) The Court shall have to decide on these arguments in due time. 54. On the other hand, the State has not admitted any responsibility for the alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention. iii) Acknowledgement of the State regarding the claims for reparation 55. In the instant case, the State did not admit the claims for reparations made by the Commission or the representatives. * * * 56. The Court considers that the acknowledgement of international responsibility made by the State constitutes an important step towards the development of this process and for the enforcement of the principles that are consecrated by the American Convention.3 57. Taking into account the powers vested in the Court for the best protection of human rights, and bearing in mind the context in which the events of the instant case have taken place, the Court considers that a judgment adjudicating on the issues of fact and on all the elements of the merits of the case, as well as on the corresponding consequences thereof, constitutes a way of contributing to the preservation of the historical memory, to the redress of the damage inflicted upon the next of kin of the victims and, moreover, it also contributes to avoid the repetition of similar events.4 Therefore, without prejudice of the scope and extent of the acknowledgement made by the State, the Court deems it convenient to include the following section to analyze the facts subject matter of this case, including both the facts acknowledged by the State and the proven facts. Besides, the Court deems it necessary to clarify certain matters regarding how the violations have taken place in the context and under the circumstances of this particular case, and regarding certain consequences related to the obligations established in the American Convention. The pertinent chapters shall also be included in this Judgment. 58. Thus, in the abovementioned chapters, the Court will also analyze those items of the merits of the case and the contingent reparations, regarding which there still exists a dispute on the international responsibility of the State, to wit: Cf. Case of Vargas-Areco, supra note 1, para. 65; Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 1, para. 52; and Case of Servellón García et al., supra note 1, para. 77. 3 Cf. Case Vargas-Areco, supra note 1, para. 66; Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 1, para. 53; and Case Servellon-Garcia et al., supra note 1, para. 78. 4