21 46. The Court also deems, based on the expressions of the State, of the InterAmerican Commission and of the representatives of the victims and their next of kin during the first public hearing, and in the April 23, 2004 briefs, and given the acceptance of the facts and the acknowledgment of international responsibility made by the State, that the controversy with respect to the facts that gave rise to the instant case has ended.13 47. Based on the above, the Court deems that the State did in fact incur international responsibility for violation of the rights set forth in Articles 5(1) and 5(2) (Right to Humane Treatment); 8(1) (Right to Fair Trial); 11 (Right to Privacy); 12(2) and 12(3) (Freedom of Conscience and Religion); 13(2) paragraph a and 13(5) (Freedom of Thought and Expression), 16(1) (Freedom of Association), 21(1) and 21(2) (Right to Property), 24 (Right to Equal Protection) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights and it did not fulfill its obligation to respect rights set forth in Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of that same Convention; 48. The victims of the violations mentioned in the previous paragraph are the persons listed by the Commission in its application (supra para. 42.48), and those that may subsequently be identified, since the complexities and difficulties faced in identifying them lead to the presumption that there may be victims yet to be identified. 49. The Court, pursuant to its April 23, 2004 Order (supra para. 44), will issue a judgment at the appropriate time regarding the scope and amount of reparations and legal costs. 50. The Court deems that the acknowledgment of international responsibility made by the State constitutes a positive contribution to the development of this proceeding and to the effectiveness of the principles behind the American Convention on Human Rights. 51. With respect to the issue of genocide mentioned both by the Commission and by the representatives of the victims and their next of kin, the Court notes that in adjudicatory matters it is only competent to find violations of the American Convention on Human Rights and of other instruments of the inter-American system for the protection of human rights that enable it to do so. Nevertheless, facts such as those stated, which gravely affected the members of the Maya achí people in their identity and values and that took place within a pattern of massacres, constitute an aggravated impact that entails international responsibility of the State, which this Court will take into account when it decides on reparations. 13 See Case of Bulacio. September 18, 2003 Judgment. Series C No. 100, paras. 27 and 38; Case of Barrios Altos. March 14, 2001 Judgment. Series C No. 75, para. 38; Case of Trujillo Oroza. January 26, 2000 Judgment. Series C No. 64, para. 40; Case of El Caracazo. November 11, 1999 Judgment. Series C No. 58, para. 41; Case of Benavides Cevallos. June 19, 1998 Judgment. Series C No. 38, para. 42; Case of Garrido and Baigorria. February 2, 1996 Judgment 2. Series C No. 26, para. 27; Case of El Amparo. January 18, 1995 Judgment. Series C No. 19, para. 20; and Case of Aloeboetoe et al.. December 4, 1991 Judgment. Series C No. 11, para. 23.