-9- some of the legal claims and claims for reparation make a positive contribution to the development of these proceedings, to the exercise of the principles that inspire the American Convention17 and, in part, to satisfying the reparation required by the victims of human rights violations and their next of kin. Furthermore, the Court considers that, as in other cases,18 the acknowledgement made by the State in the proceedings before the Commission and reiterated before this Court produces full legal effects pursuant to Articles 57 and 58 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, and has considerable symbolic value to ensure non-repetition of similar facts. 19. The Court notes that the State has acquiesced to the violations of Articles 4, 5, 11, 8, 25, 13 and 23 of the Convention in relation to Manuel Cepeda Vargas, the last two rights only in their individual aspect. Regarding the facts that constituted these violations, the Court observes that the State has acknowledged, in general terms, the facts that are linked strictly to the murder of Senator Cepeda Vargas,19 accepted specific facts related to the constitution and activities of the UP political party,20 and presented its interpretation and the extent of the context of generalized violence in Colombia at the time of the murder.21 Nevertheless, the Court notes that the State has not acknowledged certain facts set out in the application, such as those related to the alleged pattern of violence or systematic attacks against the leaders and members of the UP; the supposed existence of a State plan to conceive and execute the murder of Senator Cepeda Vargas and, specifically, the so-called “coup de grâce” plan; the allegation that State agents masterminded the execution; their supposed involvement with paramilitary groups to perpetrate the murder, and the alleged failure to comply with the obligation to investigate diligently all possible participants in Senator Cepeda’s execution. Furthermore, the State contested the existence of the alleged declarations made by senior State officials that supposedly violated Manuel Cepeda’s right to honor. Regarding the other legal claims, the State has not acknowledged the existence of an aggravated violation of the right to life, or the alleged autonomous violation of Article 44 of the Convention, in relation to the existence of precautionary measures in favor of Manuel Cepeda. Moreover, the State denies responsibility for the violation of Article 16 of the Convention. Consequently, the Court considers that the dispute subsists concerning some facts and rights, as well as with regard to specific aspects of the violations of the Convention that the State has accepted. It therefore finds it necessary to analyze them in the chapters corresponding to the merits of the case. 20. The State did acknowledge the alleged violation of Article 5 of the Convention with regard to the next of kin. However, the dispute subsists in relation to the threats the latter presumably received as a result of the measures they took to obtain justice and truth, as well as to the alleged violation of their right to justice and truth, and of Series C No. 165, para. 20; La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 29, and Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 79. 17 Cf. Trujillo Oroza v. Bolivia. Merits. Judgment of January 26, 2000. Series C No. 64, para. 42; Case of González et al. (“Campo Algodonero”) v. Mexico, supra note 15, para. 26, and Case of Kimel v. Argentina, supra note 15, para. 25. 18 Cf. Acevedo Jaramillo et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 7, 2006. Series C No. 144, paras. 176 to 180; Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2008. Series C No. 190, para. 21, and Case of Kimel v. Argentina, supra note 15, paras. 23 to 25. 19 Cf. brief in answer to the application, para. 253. 20 Cf. brief in answer to the application, para. 227. 21 Cf. brief in answer to the application, paras. 304 to 445, and the State’s oral arguments presented at the public hearing held before the Inter-American Court on January 27, 2010.