to the violations of “the rights already acknowledged by the State” (supra para. 17(e)). Therefore, as it has in other cases,18 the Court understands that Guatemala admitted all those facts that resulted in the violations for which it “accept[ed] totally” its international responsibility. 23. In addition, taking into account the violations acknowledged by the State (supra para 17(b)), the Court considers that the dispute has ceased with regard to: (a) the forced disappearance of the 26 victims whose whereabouts remained unknown when the case was submitted, and of the consequent violation of Articles 3, 4, 5, 7 and 1(1) of the American Convention and Articles I and XI of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance; (b) the violation of Article 19 of the Convention, to the detriment of Juan Pablo and María Quirina Armira López; (c) the violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, Article I of the InterAmerican Convention on Forced Disappearance, and Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the InterAmerican Convention Against Torture, and (d) the violation of Articles 5 and 17 of the Convention, to the detriment of the next of kin of the victims of forced disappearance. 24. Furthermore, the Court observes that the State also expressed its “full acceptance” of the violation of Articles 16 and 23 of the American Convention. This Court notes that, even though the violation of Article 23 of the Convention was alleged in relation to the right of access to information of the next of kin of the disappeared victims, the violation of Article 16 of the Convention was alleged based on different facts and legal grounds, and to the detriment of both the next of kin and the disappeared victims. 19 Nevertheless, based on the State’s considerations when acknowledging its responsibility with regard to Articles 16 and 23 of the Convention20, the Court understands that Guatemala acquiesced to the alleged violation of Article 23, based on the right to access information, and Article 16 “to the detriment of the next of kin of the disappeared victims,” and that it also acquiesced to the violation of Article 16 of the Convention, to the detriment of the 26 disappeared victims “as a result of their political participation in student groups and trade unions, or because they were leaders of social movements.” Consequently, the Court considers that the dispute has also ceased with regard to violation of Articles 16 and 23 of the Convention, without prejudice to the specific considerations that the Court may make in this regard in the corresponding chapters of this Judgment. 25. The Court also observes that the State acknowledged, in part, its responsibility for the violations alleged to the detriment of Rudy Gustavo Figueroa Muñoz and Wendy Santizo 18 Cf. Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009 Series C No. 196, para. 25; Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 62; Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2010. Series C No. 218, para. 64, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and reparations. Judgment of June 27, 2012. Series C No. 245, para. 27. 19 The violation of Article 16 was alleged to the detriment of the disappeared victims, because their forced disappearance was motivated by their supposed membership in opposition and/or insurgent groups, while the alleged violation of Article 16 to the detriment of the next of kin was based in the presumed threats, harassment and intimidation they had suffered by reporting or conducting searches for their disappeared relatives. 20 The State expressed it “full acknowledgment” of the violation of Articles 16 and 23 of the American Convention, “with regard to access to information, to the detriment of the next of kin of the 26 disappeared victims who had been detained,” and also indicated that it acknowledged the said violations “considering that the victims had not been guaranteed freedom of expression, because there were legal and political restrictions to this right, as a result of their political participation in student groups and trade unions, or because they were leaders of social movements.” In its oral arguments and in its brief with final arguments, Guatemala did clarify this acknowledgement, did not provide additional information and did not refer to what the Commission had indicated in its observations; rather, it expressed “it full acknowledgement” of the said violations as it had in its answering brief. - 12 -