12 collaboration of members of the Army with paramilitary groups.” Consequently, the Court finds that these alleged facts are still in dispute. 32. Regarding paragraphs 44 and 50 of the application, the State indicated that it did not accept them as true, because “they do not deal with the facts, but […] are the [Commission’s] conclusions when giving an opinion and an interpretation of the preceding facts, and this corresponds to the Court.” 33. The State also indicated that the “facts presented by the representatives […] in paragraphs 6[6].1 to 6[6].8 [of the brief with pleadings and motions] constitute new facts that do not appear in the Inter-American Commission’s application and, therefore, the State asks the Court to exclude them from its analysis.” 34. In this regard, the Court has indicated on many occasions that it is not admissible to allege new facts that differ from those described in the application, without prejudice to describing facts that can explain, clarify, or refute those mentioned in the application or respond to claims made by the plaintiff.13 The Court observes that the factual assumptions indicated in the said paragraphs 56, 57 and 66(1) to 66(8) of the representatives’ brief refer to the alleged context or pattern of violations allegedly experienced by human rights defenders in Colombia at the time of the facts. The Court considers that these alleged facts, if they are proved to be true, would clarify for the Court the context or the alleged pattern of violations mentioned by the Commission in its application. Therefore, the Court rejects the State’s request “to exclude them from its analysis” and finds that they remain in dispute. * * * 35. Regarding the legal claims, the Court finds that according to the terms of the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility, the dispute has ceased with regard to the State’s international responsibility arising from its “omission in complying with its obligation to guarantee the rights embodied in Articles 4(1), 5 and 7(1), and 7(2) [of the Convention] with regard to Jesús María Valle Jaramillo; Articles 5 and 7(1), and 7(2) [of the Convention] with regard to Nelly Valle Jaramillo[; and] Articles 5, 7(1) and 7(2), and 22 of the American Convention with regard to Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa, all in relation to Article 1(1) thereof”; as well as for the violation of Article “22 of the Convention [in relation to Article 1(1) thereof], with regard to the direct nuclear family of Carlos Jaramillo Correa,” and “Article 5 of the Convention, [in relation to Article 1(1) thereof], with regard to the direct nuclear families of the victims.” Likewise, the dispute has ceased with regard to the State’s responsibility for the violation of “the rights embodied in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, with regard to Nelly Valle Jaramillo, Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa, and [their] respective direct nuclear families” and of Jesús María Valle Jaramillo. Despite the State’s acquiescence, the Court will rule on the alleged violation of the rights embodied in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Jesús María Valle Jaramillo in the corresponding chapter (infra para. 170). 36. Since the State acknowledged its responsibility “due to [its] omission in complying with its obligation to guarantee rights” and the Commission and the representatives alleged, 13 Cf. “Five Pensioners” v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 153; Bayarri v. Argentina. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 30 2008. Series C No. 187, note 16, and Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, para. 228;