23 75. Pursuant to the terms in which the parties have made themselves heard, the Court considers that the controversy subsists with regard to: a) the fact that the State denied that there has not been an investigation and that there has been impunity in the present case, despite that it assented to the violation of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, in relation with Article 1(1) of that instrument, in detriment of the next of kin of Marco Antonio Servellón García, Rony Alexis Betancourth Vásquez, Diomedes Obed García Sánchez, and Orlando Álvarez Ríos. With regard to the investigation, the State differs in what refers to the reasons argued by the Commission and the representatives to substantiate the mentioned violation. Likewise, the State did not refer to the alleged unjustified delay in the investigations; b) the alleged violation of Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument, in detriment of the next of kin of Marco Antonio Servellón García, Rony Alexis Betancourth Vásquez, Diomedes Obed García Sánchez, and Orlando Álvarez Ríos, and c) that referring to the determination of the reparations and costs and expenses (supra para. 71). 76. Even though the State did not go on record in the respondent’s plea regarding the alleged violation of the right to truth, the Court does not consider that this is an autonomous right enshrined in Articles 8, 13, 25, and 1(1) of the American Convention, as argued by the representatives, and therefore, it will not issue a ruling regarding this matter. The Court has stated that the right to truth is included in the right of the victim or his next of kin to obtain from the State’s competent bodies the clarification of the violating facts and the corresponding responsibilities, through investigation and a trial.14 77. The Court considers that the State’s assent constitutes a positive contribution to the development of this process and to the effectiveness of the principles that inspire the American Convention15 in Honduras. 78. Taking into account the responsibilities that correspond to the State of protecting human rights and given the nature of the present case, the Court considers that the issuing of the present Judgment, in which the truth regarding the facts and all the elements of the merits of the matter are determined, as well as the corresponding consequences constitutes in itself a form of reparation,16 in favor of Marco Antonio Servellón García, Rony Alexis Betancourth Vásquez, Diomedes Obed García Sánchez, and Orlando Álvarez Ríos. 14 Cfr. Case of Montero Aranguren et al., supra note 12, para. 55; Case of Baldeón García, supra note 3, para. 166; and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 7, para. 219. 15 Cfr. Case of Montero Aranguren et al., supra note 12, para. 57; Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra note 3, para. 80; and Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 3, para. 79. 16 Cfr. Case of Montero Aranguren et al., supra note 12, para. 131; Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra note 3, para. 81; and Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 3, para. 80.