15 49. The Court observes that the dispute has ceased in relation to the State’s international responsibility for the violation of the rights embodied in Articles 4 (Right to Life), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) and 7 (Right to Personal Liberty) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Agustín Goiburú Giménez, Carlos José Mancuello Bareiro, Rodolfo Ramírez Villalba and Benjamín Ramírez Villalba, with regard to the facts that have been acknowledged (supra para. 48). 50. In addition, the dispute has ceased regarding the State’s international responsibility for the violation of the rights embodied in Articles 8(1) (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, specifically as regards the violation of the principle of reasonable time, which the State itself called a “grave judicial delay.” However, the State alleged that other aspects of the criminal proceedings underway or the recourses that the next of kin of the alleged victims could have exercised to claim reparations could not attributed to it. These allegations must be decided by the Court. iii) The State’s reparations acquiescence in relation to the claims concerning 51. The Court observes that, as the Commission has stated, although the State acknowledged its obligation to provide adequate reparation to the victims of the human rights violations perpetrated during the regime of Alfredo Stroessner, in the instant case, the State did not acquiesce to the claims concerning reparations submitted by the Inter-American Commission * * * 52. The Court considers that the State’s acquiescence constitutes a positive contribution to these proceedings and to the application of the principles that inspire the American Convention.6 53. Bearing in mind its responsibility to ensure the optimum protection of human rights and given the nature of the instant case, the Court considers that delivering a judgment in which the truth of the facts and all aspects of the merits of the case and the corresponding consequences are determined, is a way of contributing to preserve the historical memory, to make reparation to the victims’ next of kin and to help avoid a repetition of similar acts.7 Without detriment to the effects of the State’s partial acquiescence, the Court considers it pertinent to include a chapter on the facts of this case that includes both the facts acknowledged by the State and those that have been proved. The Court also considers it necessary to make some observations on the way in which the violations that were committed occurred in the context and circumstances of the case, as well as on some aspects related to the obligations established in the American Convention and other international instruments; to do this, it will include the respective chapters. 6 Cf. Case of Montero-Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia), supra note 3, paras. 57 and 61; Case of Baldeón García. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 157, para. 55; and Case of Gutiérrez Soler. Judgment of September 12, 2005. Series C No. 132, para. 59. 7 Cf. Case of Montero-Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia), supra note 3, para. 117; Case of Baldeón García, supra note 6, para. 56, and Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 2, para. 69.