30 56. The preamble of the Court’s Order of June 28, 2005 (supra para. 32) in the instant case provided as follows: 1. That the Court has taken into consideration the fact that the State “[has], acting in good faith, acknowledg[ed] its international responsibility in the instant case.” Furthermore, the State has ratified its acknowledgment of the facts averred in the petition and in the brief containing pleadings and motions, as well as the claims asserted by the Commission and the representatives in the case at hand. 2. That the acknowledgment of international responsibility by the State constitutes a positive contribution to the development of these proceedings and the enforcement of the principles underlying the American Convention.41 3. That said acknowledgment by the State […] puts an end to the dispute regarding the facts of the instant case. 4. That the Court will, in due time, decide on the points of law and reparations. […] Subsequently, the Court resolved as follows: 1. To allow the acknowledgement of international responsibility by the State, pursuant to the first Considering clause of the [...] Order. 2. That there is no longer a dispute as to the facts of the case and, accordingly, the Court will, in due time, render the relevant Judgment. 3. To continue with the proceedings in the instant case. 57. In view of the acknowledgment of international responsibility by the State (supra para. 27), the Court considers that the facts stated in paragraphs 51(1) to 51(36) of the instant Judgment have been proved and, based on such proven facts and having weighed the particular circumstances of this case, it will now list the alleged violations of the articles alleged. 58. Considering that Venezuela has acknowledged its international responsibility for the facts averred and the claims raised in the application and in the brief containing pleadings and motions, the Court considers that the State has incurred in international responsibility for the illegal detention and forced disappearance of Messrs. Oscar José Blanco-Romero, Roberto Javier Hernández-Paz and José Francisco Rivas-Fernández by State agents, in violation of their rights under Articles 4(1) (Right to Life); 5(1) and 5(2) (Right to Humane Treatment); 7(1), 7(2), 7(3), 7(4), 7(5) and 7(6) (Right to Personal Liberty); 8(1) (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, as well as for its failure to comply with its obligations under Articles 1, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, and Articles I(a) and I(b), X and XI of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons. 59. As regards the violation of Article 5 of the American Convention to the detriment of the victims’ next of kin, the Court has held that in cases that involve the 41 Cf. Case of Gutiérrez-Soler. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 10, 2003, Considering Clause No. 4; Case of Carpio-Nicolle et al. Judgment of November 22, 2004. Series C No. 117, para. 84; Case of Molina-Theissen. Judgment of May 04, 2004. Series C No. 106, para. 46; and Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre. Judgment of April 29, 2004. Series C No. 105, para. 50.