the Court’s consideration the failure to investigate the events and the grave human rights violations committed in this case, the application of the Law of General Amnesty for the Consolidation of Peace, and the situation of impunity in which the massacres remained after June 6, 1995. In addition, they alleged the violation owing to the suffering caused as a result of the violations committed in this case to the victims who survived the massacres and the next of kin of the victims who were murdered, as well as the continuing violation of the right to property to the detriment of all the victims who survived the massacres, and the violation owing to the displacement of the presumed victims committed over time and continuing after June 6, 1995 (supra para. 7). 59. At a second stage, which corresponded to the final arguments, the representatives introduced “additional considerations on the merits, particularly in relation to those facts that were not included in [their] brief with pleadings, motions and evidence, given the limitations that existed at the time for [the] Court to hear some of the facts that are part of the factual framework of the case, and that have now been overcome.” The foregoing, taking into account that the State has made an acknowledgment of the facts considered proved in the Commission’s merits report, that it has accepted the facts described in the representatives’ pleadings and motions brief, and has accepted the Court’s competence to rule in this regard. Thus, they included the violation of Articles 4, 5 and 19 of the Convention, in relation to the rights to life and to personal integrity of the victims of the massacre of El Mozote and nearby places, including the children. In addition, in their arguments on the violation of rights owing to the displacement of the victims and the destruction of the possessions and homes, they included arguments on the facts that presumably gave rise to these situations and on the time when the massacres occurred, without referring to the alleged continuity of the said violations included in their pleadings and motions brief. In addition, they argued that burning down the homes had resulted in an additional violation of Article 11 of the Convention. Lastly, they asked the Court, when delivering its judgment in this case, to “refer to the aggravated responsibility of the State, because all the violations committed [had occurred] in the context of a military strategy developed and executed by the State in absolute contradiction of the requirements of the American Convention and the principles that inspire it.” 60. In sum, the Court observes that, based on the State’s acknowledgment of the facts and acceptance of the Court’s competence in this case to rule on the facts that occurred prior to June 6, 1995 - the date of acceptance of the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction (supra paras. 29 and 30) – in their final arguments, the representatives upheld a substantially different argument regarding the legal grounds that supported their allegations in the pleadings and motions brief on human rights violations and the State’s international responsibility in this case. Given the circumstances of this case, the Court finds it pertinent to admit these arguments of the representatives, because it was only following the State’s answering brief (when El Salvador expressly granted the Court competence to rule on the facts that had occurred prior to June 6, 1995, that they were able to submit arguments relating to them. VII RIGHTS TO LIFE, TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY, TO PERSONAL LIBERTY, TO PRIVACY, TO MEASURES OF PROTECTION FOR CHILDREN, TO PROPERTY, AND TO FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT AND RESIDENCE, IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT AND ENSURE RIGHTS 61. Given the importance of determining the facts in this case, and also the context in which they occurred, in order to preserve the historical memory and prevent a repetition of similar events,35 and as a measure of reparation for the victims,36 the Court will consider proved the facts of this case and the international responsibility derived from them, based on the factual 35 Cf. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 69, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, para. 56. 36 Cf. Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala, para. 39, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, para. 56. 20