14 […] It was pleased to observe the acknowledgement of responsibility made by the Colombian State in its brief answering the application and in several subsequent briefs […]; without detriment to the foregoing, the Commission understands that there are still certain issues in dispute[.] 67. Also during the said public hearing, the representatives stated the following, inter alia, with regard to the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility: […] Taking into account the partial acknowledgement of responsibility made by the State of Colombia, […] we wish to ask the Court to incorporate into the judgment, the acknowledgement of responsibility for violation of the right to life of all the victims, the partial acknowledgment of responsibility for violation of the right to humane treatment of most of the 200 victims that are included in these proceedings, to incorporate the partial acknowledgement of responsibility for the violation of the right to personal liberty of only two of the 18 victims who suffered this violation, and the partial acknowledgement of responsibility for the violation of the right to property of six of the 22 victims who suffered the violation of this right. 68. In its brief with final arguments, the Commission indicated that “both the facts that have been acknowledged and those that remain in dispute and have been proved, substantiate State responsibility for the violation of Articles 4, 5, 7 and 21 of the Convention[,] in relation to its Article 1(1), as do the lack of due judicial clarification of the facts, reparation of their effects, and the consequent violation of Articles 8, 19, 22 and 25 [of this treaty], which still form part of the dispute.” 69. The representatives did not refer to the State’s partial acknowledgement of international responsibility in its brief with final arguments i. The State’s acknowledgement concerning the facts 70. Bearing in mind the State’s acknowledgement of international responsibility (supra paras. 19, 59, 63, and 64), the Court considers that the dispute concerning the facts alleged in the application has ceased (supra paras. 1 and 2), with the exception of those relating to the proceedings in this case in the criminal, administrative and disciplinary jurisdictions, and the determination of the alleged victims named by the representatives, and reparations and costs. 71. Consequently, the Court considers it pertinent to open a chapter on the facts of this case that covers both the facts acknowledged by the State and those that have been proved by all the elements in the case file. ii. The acquiescence of the State concerning the legal claims 72. The Court considers that it is pertinent to admit the State’s acknowledgement of international responsibility for violation of the rights embodied in the following provisions of the American Convention that were alleged in the application filed by the Commission (supra paras. 1 and 3): Article 4 (Right to Life), to the detriment of William de Jesús Villa García, María Graciela Arboleda Rodríguez, Héctor Hernán Correa García, Jairo de Jesús Sepúlveda Arias, Arnulfo Sánchez Álvarez, José Darío Martínez Pérez, Olcris Fail Díaz Pérez, Wilmar de Jesús Restrepo Torres, Omar de Jesús Ortiz Carmona, Fabio Antonio Zuleta Zabala, Otoniel de Jesús Tejada Jaramillo, Omar Iván Gutiérrez Nohavá, Guillermo Andrés Mendoza Posso, Nelson de Jesús Palacio Cárdenas, Luis Modesto Múnera Posada, Dora Luz Areiza Arroyave, Alberto Correa, Marco Aurelio Areiza Osorio and Elvia Rosa Areiza Barrera; Article 7(1) (Right to Personal Liberty), to the detriment of Jairo de Jesús Sepúlveda Arias, Marco