26 and the criminal proceedings constitute a violation of the foregoing articles, to the prejudice of Mr. Ximenes-Lopes´next of kin. 78. For their part, in their closing arguments at the above mentioned public hearing the representatives requested the Court that Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention be found to have been violated to the prejudice of Mr. Damião XimenesLopes and his next of kin. The representatives pointed out that over six years have passed since Mr. Damião Ximenes-Lopes died, but the legal proceedings instituted against those responsible for his death have not yet concluded, as a result of undue delays exclusively attributed to the State. Furthermore, in their closing argument the representatives requested the Court that the State be found to have violated Article 5 of the Convention to the prejudice of Mr. Damião Ximenes-Lopes´next of kin. 79. In accordance with the terms of the arguments submitted by the parties, the Court considers that the following issues continue to be in dispute: a) the alleged violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the Convention, regarding Article 1(1) thereof, to the prejudice of Mr. Damião Ximenes-Lopes´next of kin, and in relation to the State´s duty to conduct an effective investigation of the facts within a reasonable period in the light of the above mentioned articles; b) the alleged violation of the right enshrined in Article 5 (Right to Personal Integrity) of the Convention, regarding Article 1(1) thereof, to the prejudice of Mr. Damião Ximenes-Lopes´next of kin, and c) the issue regarding reparations and legal costs. * 80. The Court considers that the State acquiescence is a positive contribution to the outcome of the instant case and to the effectiveness of the principles which have inspired the American Convention22 in Brazil. 81. Notwithstanding, taking into consideration the duty of the State to protect human rights and the nature of the instant case, the Court considers that rendering a judgment wherein the truth of the facts and the merits of the case, as well as the pertaining consequences thereof are determined, is a kind of reparation for Mr. Damião Ximenes-Lopes and his next of kin, and in turn, a contribution so that similar situations may be prevented from occurring again.23 Cf. Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 4, para. 55; Case of García-Asto and Ramírez-Rojas, supra note 20, para. 60; and Case of Gutiérrez-Soler. Judgment of September 12, 2005. Series C No. 132, para. 59. 22 Cf. Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 4, para. 56; and Case of the Mapiripán Massacre, supra note 21, para. 69. 23