4 9. On March 1, 2007, the parties submitted their respective closing written arguments. 10. On April 10, 2007, the Secretariat, following the President's instructions and based on the terms of Article 45(2) of the Rules of Procedure, requested the representatives and the State to provide certain information and documents as evidence to facilitate the adjudication of the case, which were submitted within the period set for that purpose. IV ACCEPTANCE OF RESPONSIBILITY BY THE STATE 11. In the State’s response to the application, as previously accepted before the Commission the State acknowledged7, “its international responsibility for the violation of the rights to a Fair Trial (Article 8(1)) and the right to Judicial Protection (Article 25(1)) to the detriment of the [alleged] victim and his next of kin, since a significant period of time has passed from the death of Mr. Escué [Zapata] and the case was still pending resolution." Furthermore, the State "acknowledged its international responsibility [...] for the violation of the [rights enshrined in] Articles 4(1), 5 and 7 in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the Convention, to the detriment of Mr. Germán Escué Zapata and Article 5, in conjunction with Article 1(1) therein, to the detriment of the victim's next of kin." Without prejudice to the foregoing, the State did not agree on "the context established in the application and in the brief [...] of the representatives" and on the position of Cabildo Governor assigned to Mr. Escué Zapata by the Commission and the representatives. Besides, the State also disputed the alleged violations of the rights established in Articles 11(2), 21 and 23 of the Convention and some petitions regarding reparations. 12. During the public hearing held in the instant case (supra, para. 8), Mr. Camilo Ospina, Colombian Ambassador before the OAS, directly spoke to Mrs. Etelvina Zapata and Myriam Escué, mother and daughter of Mr. Germán Escué Zapata, who were present in the room and stated the following: Etelvina and Myriam […] it is my duty, on behalf of the Colombian State, to ask you for forgiveness regarding the incidents, because you have been involved in situations that, for the country's sake, have caused a serious damage to your family, your life, the development of your personality and have had an important consequence in the possibility of having better conditions of life. The Colombian society, through me, is begging for forgiveness and offering solidarity, expressing that we cannot possibly repair all the damage caused to you but we are going to do anything in our power to be with you and do what as a society is our duty in order to help those persons that have been affected by the events that should never have happened and for those irresponsible actions of the State, performed in strict violation of the authority, affecting citizens like you who should have never suffered from those incidents. […] The State of Colombia deeply regrets the violation of the rights of Mr. Germán Escué Zapata regarding the right to liberty and humane treatment, life and judicial guarantees and a fair trial under the general obligation to respect the rights enshrined in the American Convention of Human Rights on the part of some agents of the State, in clear breach of their duties and acknowledges, before you, the next of kin, the responsibility for the events already mentioned and asks for forgiveness to Mrs. Etelvina and Myriam, mother and daughter of the victim, who are today present in here, and to your father, sisters and brothers, as well as his companion at that time. The State further acknowledges the violation of your rights to humane treatment and the judicial guarantees and protection as well as it begs for forgiveness. The Colombian State hopes that this act be of help to the next of kin of Mr. Colombian Embassy in Costa Rica; Margarita Rey, Second Secretary of Foreign Affairs in the Permanent Mission of Colombia before the OAS and Ángela María Yepes, Advisor of the Legal Office of the Republic’s Presidency. 7 The Court has pointed out in similar cases that the acknowledgment of responsibility before the Commission has full legal effects. Cf. Case of Neira-Alegría et al. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Judgment of December 11, 1991, Series C Nº. 13, para. 29; Case of the Rochela Masacre v. Colombia. Judgment on Merits and Reparations of May 11, 2007. Series C N.º 163, para. 8 and Case of Montero-Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C Nº. 150, para. 49.