11 application, since these constitute the facts on which this proceeding is based, and they were not denied by the State in its acknowledgement. 33. In the answer to the application, the State opposed the broadening of the subject of the application regarding its international responsibility for the alleged violation of Articles 4 (Right to Life), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 17 (Rights of the Family), 18 (Right to a Name) and 19 (Rights of the Child) of the Convention, claimed by the representatives, as it considered that the facts and claims had already been subjected to a friendly settlement agreement, and that they fall outside of the competence of the Court. The State bases this position on the recognition of international responsibility performed on April 1, 2000 regarding the facts of the massacre occurred between December 6 and 8, 1982 in the community of Las Dos Erres and the violation of several Articles of the Convention. 34. On the other hand, regarding the facts related to the alleged violation of Articles 4, 5, 17, 18, and 19 of the Convention, the Court notes that the State neither admitted nor expressly disproved the facts contained in the application which underlie the alleged violations so that the Court would not to analyze the aforementioned facts, therefore it filed a preliminary objection in that regard. Consequently, the Court will address this issue when it decides on the preliminary objection filed (infra para. 51). 35. With regards to the legal claims, although the State acknowledged the alleged violation of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, as previously indicated the State filed a preliminary objection ratione temporis on the alleged violation of Articles 4, 5, 17, 18 and 19 of the Convention claimed by the representatives. The Court considers that in order to determine the existence of controversy over those claims, the ruling on the aforementioned preliminary objection must be taken into consideration (infra para. 51). 36. In view of the foregoing, and considering the State’s recognition of responsibility performed during the proceedings before the Court, the Court concludes that although the State accepted the facts related to the denial of justice of the application and recognized the alleged violation of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, taking into consideration the gravity of the facts and of the violations recognized by the State, it is necessary to make some specifications on the determination of the facts occurred, as well as on the lack of investigation and continued impunity of the case (infra chapter VIII). These specifications will contribute to the development of jurisprudence on this matter and to the corresponding protection of human rights of the alleged victims in the instant case. Likewise, the representatives claimed other violations related to Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention, which will be examined by the Court in the merits of the present Judgment (infra chapter VIII). 37. Lastly, with regard to the reparations, the Court notes that on April 1, 2000 the representatives and the State, during the proceedings before the Commission, signed an agreement in which the State undertook to perform several reparation measures. Additionally, after the friendly settlement agreement20, the State and the representatives signed an Agreement on Economic Reparation (“Acuerdo Sobre Reparación Económica”) and an Agreement on the Dissemination of the Video (“Acuerdo Sobre la Divulgación del Video”). In this sense, the Court confirms that the State has performed a series of actions and/or measures in order to implement the commitments made in those agreements, although the representatives have mentioned discrepancies regarding the manner in which the State has implemented them. In this regard, within the framework of the case submitted before the Court, 20 Cf. Friendly Settlement Agreement, supra note 3.