5 the representatives argued that Article 16 (Freedom of Association) of the American Convention had been violated to the detriment of Pedro Huilca Tecse. The appendixes to this brief were received on July 20, 2004. 20. On September 7, 2004, the State submitted its answer to the application (supra para. 13) and its observations on the requests and arguments brief of the representatives (supra para. 19), in which, based on Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure, “[it] ACQUIESC[ED] to the claims of the plaintiff and of the representatives of the [alleged] victim [and his next of kin]”, concluding that: 1. The murder of Pedro Huilca Tecse involved the participation and responsibility of the Peruvian State, and the right to life was violated[;] 2. Trade union rights were also violated with the murder of Pedro Huilca Tecse, and this, too, involved the participation and responsibility of the Peruvian State[; and] 3. The absence of a complete, impartial and effective investigation into the murder of Pedro Huilca Tecse has been proved, as well as concealment designed to hide the truth, those who were really responsible and their accomplices, all of which involved the participation and responsibility of the Peruvian State, violating the rights to a hearing with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, to judicial protection, to dignity and to the truth. Based on these conclusions, the State acknowledged its international responsibility for the violation of Articles 1 (Obligation to Respect Rights), 4(1) (Right to Life), 8(1) (Right to a Fair Trial), 11(1) (Right to Privacy: protection of honor and dignity), 16 (Freedom of Association) and 25 (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention. In addition, it stated that it “also accept[ed] the civil reparations and costs described in the application, specifically that the State of Peru should make total reparation to the [alleged] victims of the human rights violated according to the application.” Lastly, the State “request[ed] a FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT,” under Article 54 of the Rules of Procedure. 21. On September 13, 2004, the Secretariat forwarded the answer to the application to the Commission and to the representatives and, on the instructions of the President and pursuant to Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure, granted them until October 14, 2004, to present any observations on the State’s brief they deemed pertinent. 22. On November 5, 2004, after an extension had been granted, representatives presented their brief with observations on the answer to application (supra para. 20), in which they expressed their “satisfaction for State’s decision to accept the claims of both the Commission and representatives[,] and to acknowledge the participation and responsibility of Peruvian State,” and requested that the Court should: 1. Declare that the State’s acquiescence to all the terms of the application was admissible; 2. Admit the acknowledgement of international responsibility made by the State; 3. Admit expressly the acquiescence and the acknowledgement made by the State[:] (1) of the facts reported to the Court; (2) of the alleged violations […], and (3) of the obligation to repair; 4. Establish the facts and give a detailed account of them in the judgment; 5. Declare that Peru had violated the right to life, to freedom of association [in relation to trade union matters], to justice, to the truth, to judicial protection, and also its obligation to respect rights, to the detriment of Pedro Huilca Tecse, Martha Flores Gutiérrez, José Carlos Huilca Flores, Indira [Isabel] Huilca Flores, Flor de María Huilca Gutiérrez, Pedro Humberto Huilca Gutiérrez, Katiuska Tatiana Huilca Gutiérrez, and Julio César [Escobar] Flores; 6. ` Rule on the contents and scope of Article 16 of the American Convention; [and]] the the the the the