28 1. That the State [...] withdrew all the preliminary objections stated in the answer to the application dated August 31, 2004. 2. That the State [...]acknowledged the facts and its international liability for the violation of Articles 5(1), 5(2) and 5(4); 7(1), 7(2), 7(3), 7(4), 7(5) and 7(6); 8(1), 8(2)(d), 8(2)(e), 8(2)(g) and 8(3) and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights. 3. That said acknowledgement made by the State [...] does not interrupt the procedures aimed at receiving the evidence ordered to be produced on the matter of reparations and indemnities, notwithstanding which the Court may decide on the merits of the case and on the request made by the State for time period during which to attempt reaching a friendly settlement on the matter of the said indemnities Subsequently, the Court made the following decisions: 1. To admit the withdrawal of all the preliminary objections filed by the State. 2. To admit the acknowledgement of its international liability made by the State within the scope of the first and second paragraphs of the considerations contained in the [...] Order of the Court. 3. That there is no longer a dispute as to the facts and therefore, the Court would render, in due time, judgment on the merits of the case. 4. To continue holding the public hearing convened under the Order of the President of the Court dated February 1, 2005, and to restrict its subjectmatter to reparations and indemnities in the instant case […]. 51. The Court considers the facts stated in paragraph 48 of this Judgment to have been proved and on the basis of such proven facts, and having weighed the circumstances of the case, the Court proceeds to specify the different violations of the Articles mentioned it has found. 52. Firstly, as Colombia acknowledged, this Court considers that the State internationally liable for the violation of the rights embodied in Articles 5(1), 5(2) and 5(4); 7(1), 7(2), 7(3), 7(4), 7(5) and 7(6); 8(1), 8(2)(d), 8(2)(e), 8(2)(g) and 8(3) and 25 of the American Convention, regarding Article 1(1) of the same, against Mr. Wilson Gutiérrez-Soler. As to his arrest, the Court considers that it was made without a warrant issued by a judge having jurisdiction to do so and under circumstances that do not qualify as flagrancy. 53. The aforesaid notwithstanding, the Court acknowledges that there still is a dispute as to other violations alleged in the instant case. In that sense, the representatives alleged that the State also failed to comply with the obligations set forth in Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture24 (hereinafter “Inter-American Convention against Torture”), even though 24 Cf. Article 1: “[T]he State Parties undertake to prevent and punish torture in accordance with the terms of this Convention.”. Article 6: “[i]n accordance with the terms of Article 1, the States Parties shall take effective measures to prevent and punish torture within their jurisdiction. The States Parties shall ensure that all acts of torture and attempts to commit torture are offenses under their criminal law and shall make such acts punishable by severe penalties that take into account their serious nature. The States Parties likewise shall take effective measures to prevent and punish other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment within their jurisdiction”. Article 8: “[T]he States Parties shall