19 killings and torture of the four alleged victims have not been individualized or sanctioned through a definitive and executed judgment. However, the State, when referring to the legal claims of the application, indicated that “we cannot speak of impunity in these cases, in a conclusive and definitive manner,” reason for which the Commission considers that this affirmation “does not concur with the realities proven in the case […].” c) the acknowledgment of the state’s responsibility includes a general acceptance of the obligation to repair the alleged victims and their next of kin, and d) it values the acknowledgment of partial responsibility made by the State. 57. Finally, the Commission requested that the Court admit the acceptance of the facts, as well as the partial acknowledgment of international responsibility made by the State, and that the Court detail in its judgment the facts and the legal considerations that substantiate the violations acknowledged by the State. 58. On its part in its observations to the assent made by the State, the representatives acknowledged “the good will expressed by the State […] by not contesting the facts presented in the application […] and in [the brief of pleadings and motions] ‘since the same are duly substantiated and proven´ and upon the acceptance of the measures of reparation proposed by both parties.” However, they stated that the terms in which [the State] […] made the mentioned acquiescence are not clear, since they seem to indicate that the State accepts its international responsibility for all the violations argued based on the facts accepted as true, but [… from] the section titled “ON THE RIGHTS OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS THAT THE COMMISSION AND THE PETITIONERS CONSIDER HAVE BEEN VIOLATED IN THE PRESENT CASE,” we can conclude that the State is not accepting all the violations claimed. Besides, the State denies the existence of a pattern of “social cleaning” in Honduras. 59. Additionally, the representatives indicated, inter alia, that the State: did not refer to its responsibility for not having notified the alleged victims of the reasons for their arrest (Article 7(4) of the Convention), and only referred to the violation of the right to legal control of the alleged minor victims, not that of those of legal age, who were not presented before an impartial and independent judge, but instead before a police judge (Article 7(5) of the Convention). According to the representatives, the State did not refer to the violation of Articles 5(5) and 19 of the Convention, in detriment of the alleged minor victims, for having been detained along with adults and for omitting the adoption of special protective measures in relation to these, nor to the violation of Article 5 of the Convention, in detriment of the next of kin of the alleged victims. The representatives argued that the State did not acknowledge its responsibility for the violation of the alleged victim’s right to be heard in a reasonable period of time (Article 8(1) of the Convention), nor did it refer to the violation of the principle of presumption of innocence of the alleged victims (Article 8(2) of the Convention). Likewise, the State omitted all reference to its responsibility for the violation of the right to truth of the next of kin of the alleged victims and the Honduran society in general (Articles 8, 13, 25, and 1(1) of the Convention).