8 22. In their closing arguments briefs, both the State and the representatives asked that the Court certify this “Partial agreement with regard to some measures of reparation.” Likewise, in their closing arguments brief, the representatives stated that: [W]e find that what has been established in the partial agreement is totally compatible with the American Convention and with the jurisprudence of this Court, and that in some aspects it could establish new important precedents. Therefore, […] we withdraw the following categories of reparation requested in our autonomous brief, since we consider that they are covered by the partial agreement: 1) reparations that honor the victims’ memory; 2) reparations regarding the damage to the life project of the victims and their next of kin, but exclusively in relation to points 1 (studies) and 3 (employment); and 3) regarding the publication of the Court’s Judgment. We also withdraw our demands for economic compensation, exclusively in relation to the nonpecuniary damage caused to the twenty brothers and sisters of the victims mentioned in point IV of the partial agreement on reparations. 5) Arguments of the Inter-American Commission and the representatives regarding the partial acknowledgment of responsibility 23. In relation to the State’s partial acknowledgment of responsibility before the Commission, the Commission stated in its application that, ���the facts relating to the State’s omissions with regard to guaranteeing the right to life and personal integrity of the victims of the present case are not in controversy before the Tribunal.” 24. With regard to the subsequent acknowledgment made by the State before the Court, the Inter-American Commission expressed that “the partial acknowledgment of the facts and international responsibility made by the Colombian State in the present case, as well as the declaration of its desire to provide reparations for the victims, constitutes a positive contribution to the development of these proceedings.” In relation to the acknowledgment of the facts, the Commission stated that “certain aspects of the application remain in dispute [such as…] the context in which the alleged violations occurred. These violations have been partially acknowledged by the State.” The Commission stated that it “considers it relevant to point out that the Massacre of The Rochela occurred within the context described in the application and that the massacre was possible because of this context.” Moreover, the Commission indicated that, “[t]he Massacre of The Rochela did not occur within a vacuum: the events of January 18, 1989 occurred as a consequence of a series of actions and omissions that took place days before the events and within a specific social and normative context.” 25. Likewise, the Commission stated that, “the controversy between the Commission and the State subsists with regard to Colombia’s responsibility for the violations of Article 8 in relation to the actions committed by paramilitary groups.” The Commission indicated that, “the facts related to the State’s actions and omissions which have been acknowledged by the State, are not in dispute before this Tribunal.” The Commission stated that, “[w]ithout prejudice to the foregoing, and taking into account the importance of the establishment of the truth of the totality of the events within this Court’s competence with regard to the Massacre of ‘The Rochela’, […] the Commission finds that, as acknowledged by the State itself in its reply brief, the claims and demands related to the scope of the State’s responsibility for the acts and omissions of its agents persist as indicated in the application.” In its closing arguments the Commission added that the dispute persists with regard to the provision of adequate redress by the State. 26. On this issue, the representatives stated that “the State’s partial acknowledgment of international responsibility is an important gesture, which is a positive contribution to the resolution of this case.” However, they mentioned some matters still in dispute. With regard to the facts, they indicated that, by limiting its acknowledgment to the circumstances of the