13 28. The Court decides to accept the State’s acknowledgement of the aforesaid violations. Bearing in mind that the legal claims made in this case with respect to the forced disappearances have already been comprehensively established by the Inter-American Court in other cases of forced disappearance of persons and, specifically, of children in the context of El Salvador’s armed conflict, the Court does not consider it necessary, in this case, to examine the scope of the violations of the rights to freedom, to humane treatment, to life and to juridical personality (infra paras. 92 to 97). 29. As to the scope of the violations of the children’s rights to protection of the family, to private and family life, and to identity, as well as the right of their next of kin to the protection of the family, family life and humane treatment, the Court deems it pertinent to analyze this matter in the corresponding chapters, having regard to the particular features of this case (infra paras. 104 to 117). Such considerations will contribute to the development of its case law on this subject matter and to the corresponding protection of the human rights of the victims in this case. 30. Considering that the State acknowledged the legal consequences of the facts as stated in the report of the Commission, without referring to the position of the representatives concerning the right to the truth, the Court will rule on the merits regarding the relationship between this and the possible legal and factual obstacles that would have prevented compliance with the obligation to investigate the facts of the forced disappearance of José Adrián Rochac Hernández, Santos Ernesto Salinas, Emelinda Lorena Hernández, Manuel Antonio Bonilla and Ricardo Abarca Ayala (infra Chapter VII-2). 31. Regarding the measures of reparation, the Court finds that there is still a dispute about the scope of certain claims by the Commission and the representatives in relation to the reparations, as well as the results invoked by the State. Consequently, the Court will rule on these matters in Chapter VIII. 32. As to the next of kin, the State did not issue a specific statement about the victims and/or beneficiaries, but merely expressed its willingness to compensate the victims in this case, as ordered in the merits report. According to the provisions of Article 35(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, the Inter-American Commission stated in its submission brief and in merits report No. 75/12, that the presumed victims of this case were: “Alfonso Hernández, Sebastián Rochac Hernández, Estanislao Rochac Hernández, María Juliana Rochac Hernández, María del Tránsito Rochac Hernández, Ana Margarita Rochac Hernández, Nicolás Alfonso Rochac Hernández, María Adela Iraheta, Amparo Salinas, Estela Salinas, Josefina Salinas, Julio Iraheta, Felipe Flores Iraheta, María Adela Hernández, Juan de la Cruz Sánchez, Joel Alcides Hernández, Valentina Hernández, Santiago Pérez, Juan Evangelista, José Cristino Hernández, Eligorio Hernández, Rosa Ofelia Hernández, José de la Paz Bonilla, María de los Ángeles Osorio, Petronila Abarca Alvarado, José Arístides Bonilla, María Inés Bonilla, María Josefa Rosales, María Esperanza Alvarado, Luis Alberto Alvarado, Ester Ayala Abarca, Paula Alvarado, Daniel Abarca, José Humberto Abarca and Osmín Abarca.” In their pleadings and motions brief, the representatives also included as presumed victims Melvin Armando Hernández Alvarado, paternal brother of José Adrián Rochac Hernández; Juana Francisca Bonilla, paternal sister of Santos Ernesto Salinas; Wilmer Alexander Hernández, brother of Emelinda Lorena Hernández; José Reyes Bonilla Osorio, Ana Virginia Abarca Osorio and Dora Alicia Bonilla Osorio, brother and sisters, respectively, of Manuel Antonio Bonilla. In their final written arguments, the representatives added as presumed victims María Silveria Rochac Beltrán and Sergio Rochac, mother and brother respectively of José Adrián Rochac Hernández; Manuel Eugenio Salinas, father of Santos Ernesto Salinas; Simón de Jesús Bonilla Ayala, nephew of Manuel Antonio Bonilla; Juan José Ayala Alvarado and Juan Francisco Abarca Alvarado, father and paternal brother, respectively, of Ricardo Abarca Ayala. To summarize: 25 persons were named as next of kin of the presumed victims in the instant case by the Commission and the representatives, and accepted by the State; 10 people were named as next of kin of the presumed victims by the Commission and accepted by the State, but not by the representatives, and 12 persons were named as the presumed victims’ next of kin only by the representatives.