- 87 - VI OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS 265. Therefore, THE COURT DECIDES: unanimously, 1. To reject the first, second and fourth preliminary objection filed by the State, in accordance with paragraphs 24 to 37 and 44 to 46 of this judgment. 2. To declare that the third preliminary objection filed by the State is inadmissible, in accordance with paragraphs 38 to 43 of this judgment. AND DECLARES, unanimously, that: 1. It accepts the State’s partial acknowledgment of international responsibility, in the terms of paragraphs 13 to 23 of this judgment. 2. The State violated the rights to life and personal integrity, established in Articles 4(1) and 5(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Senator Manuel Cepeda Vargas, in the terms of paragraphs 67 to 126 of this judgment. 3. The State violated the rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection, established in Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Senator Manuel Cepeda Vargas and his next of kin in the terms of paragraphs 127 to 167 of this judgment. 4. The State violated the rights to protection of honor and dignity, freedom of association, and freedom and thought and expression, and political rights, established in Articles 11, 13(1), 16 and 23 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Senator Manuel Cepeda Vargas, in the terms of paragraphs 168 to 179 of this judgment. 5. The State violated the rights to personal integrity, protection of honor and dignity, freedom of movement and residence, established in Articles 5, 11 and 22(1), of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Iván Cepeda Castro, María Cepeda Castro, Olga Navia Soto, Claudia Girón Ortiz, María Estella Cepeda Vargas, Ruth Cepeda Vargas, Gloria María Cepeda Vargas, Álvaro Cepeda Vargas and Cecilia Cepeda Vargas, in their respective circumstances, in the terms of paragraphs 180 to 210 of this judgment. 6. It is not incumbent on the Court to issue a ruling on the alleged violation of Articles 41 and 44 of the American Convention on Human Rights to the detriment of