order that goes beyond the will of the parties, the Court must ensure that statements of acknowledgement of responsibility are acceptable for the objectives sought by the interAmerican system. This task is not limited to merely confirming, recording or taking note of the acknowledgement made by the State, or verifying the formal conditions of the said statements, but rather the Court must relate them to the nature and severity of the alleged violations, the demands and interest of justice, the particular circumstances of the specific case, and the attitude and position of the parties,18 so that it can identify, insofar as possible and in the exercise of its competence, the truth of what occurred. 19 21. Taking into account the violations acknowledged by the State (supra para. 17), the Court considers that the dispute has ceased with regard to: (a) the violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention to the detriment of the members of Marino López Mena’s family, owing to the unjustified delay in the proceedings required to identify and punish the masterminds and perpetrators of the death of Marino López, in evident violation of a reasonable time, and (b) the violation of the principle of reasonable time, in the terms of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, to the detriment of the victims of forced displacement. 22. Regarding the rights contained in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, the dispute remains with regard to the alleged violation of due diligence in the investigations. Likewise, the Court notes that the dispute continues with regard to: (a) the facts and claims relating to the alleged violations of Articles 4, 5, 8 and 25, in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention, as well as with regard to the alleged violations of Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the InterAmerican Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture to the detriment of Marino López Mena; (b) the alleged violation of the rights contained in Articles 5, 19, 8 and 25, to the detriment of the next of kin of Marino López; (c) the alleged violations of Articles 8, 25 and 5, in relation to Articles 19 and 22, in relation to Articles 1(1), 5, 11, 17, 19, 21 and 24 of the Convention, to the detriment of the members of the Afro-descendant communities of the Cacarica associated in CAVIDA and of the women heads of household who live in Turbo, and also to the detriment of their children, and (d) the establishment of eventual reparations, costs and expenses. V PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission “Lack of competence ratione personae” 23. The State argued that, although Article 35(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure indicates that the merits report must identify the presumed victims, the Commission has based this case on three different groups of victims, abandoning its criteria of individualization and identification. The State also indicated that the representatives had made a late submission of a list of the presumed victims of the forced displacement, “disregarding the fact that the peremptory and exclusive moment for the identification of the presumed victims […] is that of the submission of the case, on presenting the merits report.” Consequently, the State presentation of the case or the brief submitted by the alleged victims or their representatives, the Court shall decide, having heard the opinions of all those participating in the proceedings and at the appropriate procedural moment, whether to accept that acquiescence, and shall rule upon its juridical effects.” Article 64. Continuationj of a case. Bearing in mind its responsibility to protect human rights, the Court may decide to continue the consideration of a case notwithstanding the existence of the conditions indicated in the preceding articles.” 18 Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008. Series C No. 177, para. 24, and Case of García and family members v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2012 Series C No. 258, para. 16. 19 Cf. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 17, Case of García and family members v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs, para. 16. 10