20 60. Later, the State pointed out that even though the acknowledgment was accompanied of a full detail of the rights of the American Convention it acknowledged had been violated in the present case, due to the interest of the petitioners in a clarification regarding the scope of the assent, it stated that it acknowledged: a) expressly in the respondent’s plea the violation of Article 7 subparagraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 (Right to Personal Liberty) of the Convention, and clarified that said transgression was in accordance with Article 1(1) of that Treaty, and that the violation of Article 7(6) of the Convention was at the same time in relation with Articles 25 and 1(1) of the same; b) expressly the violation of Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) of the Convention, and clarified that it acknowledged said violation in the terms of subparagraphs 1 and 2 of the mentioned article, and always in relation with Article 1(1) of that instrument; c) expressly its responsibility for the violation of Article 4 (Right to Life) of the Convention, and, clarified that this acknowledgment was made in connection with Article 1(1) of that treaty; d) expressly in the respondent’s plea the violation of Articles 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the Convention regarding Marco Antonio Servellón García, Rony Alexis Betancourt Vásquez, Diomedes Obed García Sánchez, and Orlando Alvarez Ríos, and clarified that it acknowledged said violation in the terms of subparagraphs 1 and 2 of Article 8 and subparagraph 1 of Article 25 of the Convention, and in relation with Article 1(1) of that treaty, and e) its responsibility for the violation of Articles 19 (Rights of the Child), 5(5), and 7(5) of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1(1) of the same, regarding the minors Marco Antonio Servellón García and Rony Alexis Betancourth Vásquez, since said acknowledgment was omitted from its response to the petition. * * * 61. Based on the facts established, the evidence presented in the present case, as well as that argued by the parties, the Court will proceed to determine the scope and legal effects of the acknowledgment of international responsibility made by the State (supra paras. 16, 54, 55, and 60), within the framework of the state’s responsibility generated by violations to the American Convention. For said effects it will analyze the mentioned acknowledgment of responsibility under three aspects: 1) regarding the facts; 2) regarding the law, and 3) regarding the reparations. 1) Regarding the facts 62. In attention to the acknowledgment of responsibility made by the State, the Tribunal considers that the controversy between the facts included in paragraphs 27 through 106 of the application presented by the Inter-American Commission in the present case (supra para. 11) has ceased. However, the State mentioned that it is not true that there has not been an investigation and that we cannot speak of a conclusive and definitive impunity in this case. 63. Therefore, the Court considers it appropriate to open a chapter regarding the facts of the present case, which will cover both the facts acknowledged by the State