41. Likewise, the Court recalls in its Judgment that it stated: in the substantiation of the claim […] the judicial authorities did not investigate the facts diligently and the procedural burden fell for the most part on Mr. Bueno-Alves. The role that the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Judge played was notoriously passive. The judge only received the requests for evidence filed by the applicant, some of which have not been upheld, and the Public Prosecutor’s Office has not made any efforts to gather all the pieces of evidence which might be useful to establish the truth of the facts. Likewise, no investigations were conducted regarding the claims made by the victim reporting blows to the stomach and deprivation of medicines. On the other hand, those persons identified as responsible for the blows inflicted upon Mr. BuenoAlves were not included in the early stages of the criminal process and instead they were included long after the commencement of the process; and despite the fact that Mr. Bueno-Alves reported the presence of a third person while he was being beaten on the ears and the stomach, no efforts were made in order to identify such person. In sum, the criminal proceeding did not contribute to the identification or punishment of any person, it almost entirely depended on the activities of the victim, and it did not provide reparation for the damages caused thereto. (bold added). 42. Moreover, it is necessary to recall that, in this case, the State “accept[ed] the conclusions contained in [R]eport 26/05 adopted by the […] Commission […], as well as the legal consequences deriv[ed] therefrom,” “ assuming [its] full responsibility in the case.” 55 This is the manner in which, before the Court, the State expressly promised to “make its best efforts to conclude, as soon as possible, the investigations into the facts which caused damage to Mr. Bueno-Alves while he was held in custody.” Similarly, the State also expressed that “[o]nce the circumstances [of the facts of this case] have been clearly determine[d], […] the State may adopt the appropriate measures so that the commission of the crimes does not go unpunished, submitting those responsible for the […] denial of justice to the pertinent and most effective administrative and judicial proceedings for the fulfillment of such objective.” 56 43. Given these manifestations made by the State, the Court considers that classifying the facts as “duress” and not as acts of torture is contrary to the State’s acknowledgment of international responsibility and the commitment adopted by the State before the Court. 44. On the other hand, while in its Judgment the Court noted that this acknowledgment of responsibility constitutes “an important step towards the development of this process [and] the enforcement of the principles enshrined in the American Convention,”57 the Court considers that the acknowledgment supposes the prompt and effective compliance of the provisions ordered therein. If State authorities remain inactive without repairing the damage caused, the initial content the provisions of Article 4 of the Convention, are weakened in the practical application of these provisions by the judges, those of whom, as the Committee has proven in the examination of the background of a significant number of cases, often prefer to prosecute for crimes of lesser severity, punishable by lesser sentences, with diminished deterrent effect. [...] Committee against Torture, Report on the fifty-third session, Supplement No. 44 (A/53/44), September 16, 1998. 55 Cf. Case of Bueno Alves V. Argentina, supra note 10, para. 22. 56 Cf. Case of Bueno Alves V. Argentina, supra note 10, para. 210. 57 Cf. Case of Bueno Alves V. Argentina, supra note 10, para. 34. 18