15 Aurelio Areiza Osorio and Elvia Rosa Areiza Barrera; Article 5(2) (Right to Humane Treatment), to the detriment of Marco Aurelio Areiza Osorio and Elvia Rosa Areiza Barrera; and Article 21(1) (Right to Property), to the detriment of Luis Humberto Mendoza, Libardo Mendoza, Francisco Osvaldo Pino Posada, Omar Alfredo Torres Jaramillo, Ricardo Alfredo Builes Echeverry and Bernardo María Jiménez Lopera, all in relation to Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) thereof. iii. Claims for reparations 73. The Court observes that the State did not acquiesce to any of the claims for reparations and costs presented by the Commission and the representatives (supra para. 62). b) Scope of the subsisting dispute 74. In their requests and arguments brief, the representatives included additional alleged victims of the violations of the rights alleged by the Commission, and further alleged victims and other allegedly violated rights that were not included in the application (supra para. 18). 75. In their brief with final arguments, the representatives indicated, inter alia, that the allegations regarding the child, Wilmar Restrepo, were “applicable [to] the other children who were the [alleged] direct victims of the violent behavior of the paramilitary group and the agents of the Colombian State in the municipal districts of La Granja and El Aro and also to the other children, members of the families who were victims of the violations committed during these events.” In this regard, they requested that “in application of the iura novit curia principle, [the Court] should rule on the same violation with regard to the grandchildren of Elvia García and to the children who lived in El Aro.” They also stated that the violation of the right to property “was applicable to all the [alleged] victims who lost their property and livelihood in El Aro, and who are listed in detail in the brief of helpful evidence requested by the Court, in the attachment with concluding arguments, and in the section on reparations.” Lastly, the representatives asked the Court to declare that the State had violated the right to freedom of movement and residence of “724 persons who have been individualized and to establish compensation for each of them on grounds of equity” (supra para. 49). 76. The State denied that it had violated Articles 6 (Freedom from Slavery), 8(1) (Right to a Fair Trial), 19 (Rights of the Child), 22 (Freedom of Movement and Residence) and 25(1) (Right to Judicial Protection) of the Convention, to the detriment of the alleged victims as alleged by the Commission and the representatives (supra para. 20). 77. The State did not expressly contest the assertions regarding alleged violations of Articles 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 7 (Right to Personal Liberty) and 21 (Right to Property) of the Convention, to the detriment of the persons indicated by the representatives in their requests and arguments brief, who were not included in the State’s acquiescence (supra paras. 19, 59, 63 and 64). 78. In accordance with the arguments of the parties, the Court considers that the dispute between them subsists with regard to: