81 XIII OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS 310. Therefore: THE COURT, DECIDES: unanimously, 1. To partially dismiss the preliminary objection of ratione temporis filed by the State, in accordance with paragraphs 44 to 51 of this Judgment. AND DECLARES, unanimously, that: 1. It accepts the partial acknowledgement of international responsibility made by the State, pursuant to the terms of paragraphs 28 to 38 of this Judgment. 2. The State violated the right to a fair trial and judicial protection enshrined in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, as well as the obligations established in Articles 1, 6 an 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture and Article 7(b) of the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence against Women, to the detriment of the 155 victims of the instant case, in their corresponding circumstances, according to the terms of paragraphs 69 to 154 of this Judgment. 3. The State violated the obligation to respect rights and the obligation to adopt domestic legal effects enshrined, respectively, in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights, pursuant to the terms of paragraphs 106 to 124 and 152 to 154 of this Judgment. 4. The State violated the rights of the family and right to a name enshrined in Articles 17 and 18 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 19 thereof, to the detriment of Ramiro Antonio Osorio Cristales, according to the terms of paragraphs 169 to 200 of this Judgment. 5. The State violated the right to humane treatment recognized in Article 5(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the 153 victims, in accordance with the terms of paragraphs 204 to 217 of this Judgment. Furthermore, the State violated the right to humane treatment embodied in Article 5(1) of the American Convention on Human rights, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 19 thereof, to the detriment of Ramiro Antonio Osorio Cristales and Salomé Armando Gómez Hernández, pursuant to the terms of paragraphs 214 to 217 of this Judgment. 6. It does not correspond to the Court to issue a determination regarding the alleged violation of the right to property embodied in Article 21 of the Convention, pursuant to paragraph 222 of this Judgment. AND DECIDES: unanimously, that: