9 Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture claimed by the representatives,] took place before March 26, 1993; therefore, the jurisdiction of the Court to decide on said matters is limited.” Notwithstanding the foregoing, the State added that, in “view of the special circumstances of the instant case[,] and in order to fully vindicate the memory of the victim and his relatives, to whom the State expresses its respect and consideration, the State [...] will not challenge the additional claims brought by the Commission.” 47. At that hearing, both the Commission and the representatives found that the acknowledgment of liability made by the State and the request for forgiveness communicated to the relatives of Gerardo Vargas-Areco through Sebastián VargasAreco constituted a positive behavior on the part of the State. The Commission found that the acknowledgment of the State “involves acquiescence in the events and acceptance of the legal consequences specified in the application.” Furthermore, the representatives “thanked deeply the behavior of the State of Paraguay as regards to its acknowledgment of liability.” 48. At the public hearing, the representatives alleged that the State was liable for violation of the right to life and personal liberty “given that no investigation was carried out on the forced recruitment and no prevention measures were adopted.” Furthermore, in their final arguments, the representatives added that the State was also liable for failure to comply with the “obligation to investigate and punish the violations of the rights set forth in Articles 1(1), 4, 7 and 5(1) [of the Convention], in relation to Articles 6 and 8” of the Convention against Torture. Similarly, in that brief the representatives claimed that the State was liable for violation of the “right to special protection measures for the child [set forth in Article 19 of the Convention], in relation to Articles 1(1), 2 and 7” thereof. The representatives stated that “given the fact that the Inter-American Court lacks jurisdiction to decide on events occurred before March 26, 1993, the alleged violations of rights refer exclusively to the performance of domestic proceedings, the denial of justice and its consequences, to protect children and to safeguard the relatives of Gerardo Vargas-Areco.” 49. In its final arguments (supra para. 32), the State restated the arguments expressed at the public hearing, in the sense that it “will not challenge the additional claims brought by the Commission.” 50. In its final arguments (supra para. 32), the Commission stated that the State had acknowledged the claims brought by the Commission regarding Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of said treaty as well as the additional claims brought by the representatives regarding Articles 19 and 5(1) of said treaty, in relation to Articles 1(1) thereof and Articles 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, “after March 26, 1993, given the limitations applicable to the ratione temporis jurisdiction of the Court.” 51. Moreover, in their final arguments the representatives stated (supra para. 32) that “the State acquiesced in the application in full” and, therefore, “the facts, questions of law and reparations sought by the representatives and the […] InterAmerican Commission have not been contested.”