the right to the truth of the victims and was contesting the evidence before the Court and the testimony provided during the hearing. With regard to the State’s acknowledgement in relation to Article 12 of the Convention, they indicated that, although they had not alleged its violation, “it is consistent with the suffering endured by the next of kin and, therefore, [they] considered that, if admitted by the Court, it would be a reasonable evolution of the Court’s case law.” Furthermore, regarding the other presumed victims of forced disappearance, including Ana Rosa Castiblanco Torres, the representatives indicated that the State’s acknowledgement corresponded to the theory of missing persons and not of disappeared persons, so that “it does not constitute an acknowledgement of responsibility [but rather] a different version of the facts.” With regard to Carlos Horacio Urán Rojas, the representatives argued that the State’s acknowledgement “does not really correspond to an acknowledgement of responsibility.” In the case of the next of kin with regard to whom the State did not acknowledge its responsibility, the representatives argued that Paola Fernanda Guarín Muñoz and Esmeralda Cubillos Bedoya should be considered victims. 25. The Commission indicated that the State’s partial acknowledgement of responsibility was “a constructive step in these proceedings.” However, it pointed out that only part of this was an acquiescence according to the Rules of Procedure and “relate[d] to a very limited part of the case,” while “a significant part of the State’s position does not truly constitute an acknowledgement, […] but rather disputes the basic aspects of the case.” In particular, the Commission observed that, although the State had acknowledged the forced disappearance of Irma Franco Pineda and Carlos Augusto Rodríguez Vera and the detention and torture suffered by Yolanda Santodomingo and Eduardo Matson Ospino “in the same terms as the Merits Report,” “as regards its legal conclusions,” the dispute remained in relation to the facts that substantiate these violations owing to “the position adopted by the Colombian State during the public hearing with regard to the facts surrounding the operation to retake the Palace of Justice.” In addition, it clarified that, considering that Carlos Augusto Rodríguez Vera and Irma Franco Pineda remained disappeared, the application of Article I(a) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance “should, indeed, be for the perpetration of forced disappearance” and not based on “omission.” In addition, the Commission indicated that “fundamental factual differences” remain between its conclusions concerning what happened to the other presumed victims in this case and the State’s so-called partial acknowledgement of those conclusions. According to the Commission, the State’s partial acknowledgement is based on a different version of the facts, so that, “conceptually, it does not represent an acknowledgement of responsibility, but rather a dispute of the facts and a different legal definition.” Lastly, the Commission observed that “the acknowledgements with regard to all the domestic investigations related to the case are based on the existence of an excessive delay and specific irregularities in the investigations,” without taking into account the Commission’s other conclusions in this regard. C. Considerations of the Court 26. This Court considers that the partial acknowledgement of international responsibility made by the State makes a positive contribution to the progress of these proceedings and to the implementation of the principles that inspire the American Convention, 24 as well as to meeting the needs for reparation of the victims of human rights violations. 25 The Court 24 Cf. Case of El Caracazo v. Venezuela. Merits. Judgment of November 11, 1999. Series C No. 58, para. 43, and Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 28, 2013. Series C No. 268, para. 20. 25 Cf. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 18, and Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 28, 2013. Series C No. 268, para. 20. 13