in its final arguments. In its answering brief, the State had indicated that it “totally contested” these violations. c) It also indicated that it “totally contested” the alleged violations of: 1. Paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of Article I of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance; 2. Articles 17 and 19 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Edgar Fernando García, Nineth Varenca Montenegro Cottom, Alejandra García Montenegro and María Emilia García; 3. Articles 12 and 18 of the Convention, alleged by the representatives, and 4. The “supposed violation of the right to the truth” alleged by the representatives. d) In addition, the State “accept[ed]” Edgar Fernando García, Nineth Varenca Montenegro Cottom, Alejandra García Montenegro and María Emilia García as victims in this case. It also indicated its “total opposition” to considering Mario Alcides Polanco Pérez and Andrea Polanco Montenegro as victims. Nevertheless, in its answering brief, the State had indicated that “taking into account the family ties that exist [between Andrea Polanco Montenegro] and Nineth Varenca Montenegro Cottom and the possible collateral effects of her […] mother’s suffering, the State indicates its acceptance that she be considered a victim in this case, but only as regards the measure of reparation of psychological treatment.” e) Regarding the measures of reparation requested, on April 24, 2012, prior to the public hearing in this case (supra para. 10), the State presented “an agreement on measures of reparation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused and the costs incurred” reached between the victims, through their representatives, and Guatemala on April 20, 2012, “[w]ithin the framework of a friendly settlement in the context of [these] proceedings” (hereinafter “reparations agreement”). 9 The State requested that this agreement be considered in the judgment that the Court would eventually deliver. According to this agreement, the parties held “working meetings in order to reach an agreement on the issue of pecuniary and non-pecuniary reparations requested by the petitioners and legal representatives in [this] case,” after they had been summoned to the public hearing. In this agreement, the State undertook to adopt specific measures of reparation (infra para. 23 and Chapter IX). In its closing arguments, the State requested that the Court “find that the claims of the petitioners have been satisfied under the terms of the agreement” reached by the parties on April 20, 2012. 10 B) Observations of the Commission and the representatives 14. The Commission “assesse[d] positively the State’s acknowledgment of the facts and of its international responsibility with regard to certain rights established in the submission of the case.” It indicated that it understood that, by fully accepting certain violations, the 9 The agreement, which was “drawn up in an official document on April 20, 2012,” was signed during a meeting held at the Peace Secretariat, in the presence of the following: (a) for the State: Antonio Fernando Arenales Forno, Secretary for Peace, Jorge Humberto Herrera Castillo, President of the National Compensation Commission; Maria Elena de Jesus Lopez, the State’s Agent for this case, and (b) for the representatives of the victims: Mario Alcides Polanco Pérez, Director of the GAM, and Maynor Estuardo Alvarado Galeano. 10 Previously, in its answering brief, the State had presented specific arguments and observations on the claims for reparation. 8