5 to determine if an acknowledgment of international responsibility made by a respondent State constitutes sufficient grounds, in the terms of the American Convention, to conclude the proceedings, or if it is necessary, to continue with the examination of the merits and the determination of the reparations and costs. For these effects, the Tribunal analyzes the situation presented in each specific case.8 A) Scope of the partial acknowledgment of international responsibility made by the State 1) Regarding the facts 10. On September 28, 2005, during the proceedings before the Commission, the State undertook a public act of acknowledgment of responsibility, in the framework of compliance with the recommendations adopted in the Report on the Merits No. 29/05 (supra para. 1). In this act, the Vice-President of the Republic of Colombia stated, inter alia, the following: [O]n behalf of the Colombian State and as Vice-President of the Republic I acknowledge the State’s international responsibility for not having adopted the measures necessary to guarantee the security of our officials; this omission permitted the violation of their rights to life and personal integrity.9 11. In the State’s reply brief, the State declared that “it will not debate the facts described in the petition that have a direct relationship with the occurrence of the massacre (para. 47 to 68 [of the Commission’s application]) but it differs with regard to the assessment of the context in which the events occurred.” In stating the purpose of its reply brief, the State indicated that: it acknowledges the events which occurred on January 18, 1989 with regard to Mariela Morales Caro, Pablo Antonio Beltrán Palomino, Virgilio Hernández Serrano, Carlos Fernando Castillo Zapata, Luis Orlando Hernández Muñoz, Yul Germán Monroy Ramírez, Gabriel Enrique Vesga Fonseca, Benhur Iván Guasca Castro, Orlando Morales Cárdenas, César Augusto Morales Cepeda, Arnulfo Media Duarte, Samuel Vargas Páez, Arturo Salgado Garzón, Wilson Humberto Mantilla Castilla, and Manuel Libardo Díaz Navas. […] Even though the State acknowledges its responsibility, both for the State’s omission in its duty to guarantee and for the isolated action of some of its agents (acquiescence and collaboration), the facts acknowledged by the State are only those specifically related to the case of the massacre of “The Rochela”, that is, those which occurred in the month of January 1989. 12. Similarly, in its reply brief, the State “acknowledges as valid the representatives’ statement regarding some specific facts related to the massacre, which it deems need no correction (pages 28 to 31) [of the brief containing pleadings and motions].” However, “with regard to the citations and the document transcripts,” the State expressed that “the probative value of the inquiries, statements, and other procedural pieces must be analyzed systematically and with due precaution” and that “not everything included in them is necessarily true since they only include isolated pieces of the investigations.” Regarding this matter, in its closing arguments, the State “emphasize[d] the need to comprehensively assess the content of the documents and probative elements present in the record which were taken into account by the Commission and the representatives for their claims”. 8 Cf. Case of La Cantuta. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para 49; Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 132; Case of Vargas Areco. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, para. 43. 9 Cf. State’s reply brief, (record of the merits, reparations, and costs, volume I, page 862); and Commission’s Application, Appendix 3, page 1809.