date no concrete results had been obtained owing to “the complexity of the events that are being investigated, was a result, in particular, of the modus operandi of the illegal organizations that originated the facts, the vulnerable situation of the population that was a victim of those facts, and the difficult conditions for the access of the judicial officials to the area where the events occurred.” Observations of the Commission and of the representatives 18. The Commission argued that, “although this acknowledgement of responsibility is assessed positively, it is of limited scope and only refers to one of the numerous factors of impunity that have been proved in this case; that is, non-compliance with the guarantee of a reasonable time.”15 It also indicated that the dispute still subsisted with regard to the violation of the other rights established in the American Convention and in the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture.16 Accordingly, the Commission asked the Court: (a) to grant legal effect to the acknowledgement; (b) to prepare a detailed description of the events and of the violations that occurred, and (c) to make a thorough analysis of the violations that had been partially accepted and those that had been contested, and to proceed to declare the international responsibility of the State in this case. 19. Meanwhile, the representatives indicated that they appreciated the fact “that the State had acknowledged the vulnerable situation of the victims and the difficulties of access to the site of the events,” but that, in reality, “the investigations conducted by the State lacked rigor and determination, and it was this, and not the difficulties indicated by the State, that explain why the case remains in total impunity 15 years after the events.” Therefore, they considered that the State had “not acknowledged the factual and legal grounds that led the Commission to declare it responsible for the violation of Articles 8 and 25 to the detriment of the victims” and, consequently, that the said procedural action, was “not aimed at ending the dispute concerning this fact, so that it cannot be considered a true acknowledgement of responsibility, or a positive contribution to the progress of the instant case,” nor was it helping to establish the truth of what happened. Thus, they asked that the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility be rejected and that the Court proceed to “determine precisely what happened.” B. Considerations of the Court 20. In accordance with Articles 62 and 64 of its Rules of Procedure,17 and in exercise of its powers concerning the international protection of human rights, a matter of international public Office to investigate the crimes of murder of a protected person, acts of terrorism, forced displacement, and conspiracy to commit a crime, identifying as victims: Marino López Mena, and the communities displaced from the basins of the Cacaria and Sutatá Rivers; (b) the confessions obtained under the Justice and Peace Law that have resulted in the elaboration of four theories regarding the events that led to the death of Marino López Mena, and (c) the investigative proceeding being conducted by the Prosecutor General’s Office in order to identify the community councils or communities that form part of the Cacarica River basin, and thus achieve full individualization and identification of the victims. 15 The Commission indicated, in particular, that different elements demonstrate the State’s lack of due diligence in the investigation of the facts of the case; for example, the lack of security experienced from the start of the proceedings by “one of the deponents and the agents of justice involved, which, even though the State was aware of it, did not result in specific measures of protection in order to ensure their participation in the investigation.” The Commission added that the presumed “victims in the case continue to be subjected to attacks and violence that, added to their precarious situation, prevent access to justice and have an inhibiting effect on their participation in the proceedings.” Regarding the factors of impunity, it observed that “the pressure suffered by officials of the Human Rights Unit during the initial stages of the investigation and the disciplinary proceedings opened against them, combined with a context [of] threats, led the [Commission] to grant precautionary measures owing to the danger they faced […].” 16 The dispute continues with regard to Articles 1(1), 4, 5, 8, 11, 17, 19, 21, 22 and 25 of the American Convention and Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. 17 Articles 62 and 64 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure establish: Article 62. “Acquiescence: If the respondent informs the Court of its acceptance of the facts or its total or partial acquiescence to the claims stated in the 9