6 2) Regarding the legal claims 13. In relation to the legal claims of both the Commission and the representatives (supra para. 3 and 4), Colombia stated that it acknowledges: b. [I]ts international responsibility, through action and omission, for the violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 4 (right to life), 5 (right to personal integrity), and 7 (right to personal liberty), in relation to the general obligation established in Article 1(1) of the American Convention, with regard to the [deceased victims and the surviving victims]. c. [I]ts international responsibility for the violation of the right to personal integrity protected in Article 5 of the Convention, with regard to the victims’ next of kin. d. [I]ts partial international responsibility, for the violation of Articles 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection), in connection to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect the Rights) of the American Convention, to the detriment of the victims and their next of kin in the case of The Rochela, since it considers that there are still judicial processes pending that are designed to punish the material and intellectual authors. 14. On this last point, in the State’s reply brief, the State indicated that: Partial impunity has existed with regard to the investigation and prosecution of all those responsible for the massacre. In this sense, [the State] admits that it failed in its duty to investigate and punish all of the perpetrators involved in the deplorable events. 15. In relation to the other legal claims, the State considered that: it has complied with its treaty obligation established in Article 2 of the Convention and for that reason it has adopted “[…]the legislative measures or measures of another nature necessary to make these rights and liberties effective, in accordance with its constitutional procedures and the stipulations of this Convention.” With regard to the measures implemented, the State specifically noted Law 975 of 2005, and the recent ruling of the Constitutional Court C-370 of 2006. […] regarding the right to the truth, the Court has been consistent in pointing out that this right is subsumed in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. In other words, it cannot be invoked as an autonomous right within the American Convention, as erroneously proposed by the representatives in their brief. 3) Regarding the identity and number of victims 16. As stated in the previous section on the legal claims, Colombia clearly acknowledged the violation of Articles 4, 5, and 7 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of said treaty, to the detriment of the 12 members of the Judicial Commission [Comisión Judicial] that passed away and the 3 survivors. The State also expressed that it acknowledges its international responsibility for the violation of Article 5 of the Convention “with regard to the victims’ next of kin.” Likewise, Colombia “partially” acknowledged its responsibility with regard to the violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention “to the detriment of the victims and their next of kin.” 4) 17. Regarding the requests for reparations and costs In its reply brief, the State asked the Court to declare, inter alia, that: [I]t has been advancing on the criminal and disciplinary investigations in order to punish all those responsible and clarify the truth of what happened with regard to the massacre of “The Rochela”, without prejudice to its duty to continue and conclude these investigations.