8 25. In its answer to the application, the State affirmed that it considered it “unnecessary to formulate observations on the reality of the facts alleged by the Commission and the petitioners, because these facts […] have been repaired adequately in the domestic jurisdiction.” It indicated that “since the allegations have been clarified and decided in the local jurisdiction, […] it did not question [their] truth.” The State referred to the judgment of June 1, 2004, handed down by the Federal National Criminal and Correctional Appeals Chamber, which decided to absolve Juan Carlos Bayarri of guilt and of the charges and ordered his immediate release, considering that he had been the victim of “coercion and torture,” and also to the decision ordering the closure of the preliminary investigation stage that was examining the reported acts of torture and unlawful detention. In addition, in its brief in answer to the application, the State gave a detailed description of the processing of the two criminal actions relating to this case, which matches and clarifies the corresponding description provided by the Inter-American Commission in its application and the representatives in their pleadings and motions brief. 26. The Inter-American Commission considered that “the factual grounds of the instant case […], which relate to the unlawful and arbitrary detention of Juan Carlos Bayarri, his torture and the corresponding criminal actions are not in dispute,” as indicated by the State in its answer to the application. The representatives affirmed that, according to Article 38(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, “directly, indirectly and/or tacitly” [the State] “has acquiesced to the existence of the facts and the grave human rights violations perpetrated against the [alleged victim] and the members of his family.” Consequently, they considered that “all the denounced facts, circumstances and accessory issues have been proved and admitted as definitely and unquestionably true.” 27. that: Article 38(2) of the Rules of Procedure, cited by the representatives, establishes In its answer, the respondent must state whether it accepts the facts and claims or whether it contradicts them, and the Court may consider accepted those facts that have not been expressly denied and the claims that have not been expressly contested. 28. According to Article 38(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court has the power, but not the obligation, to consider accepted those facts that have not been expressly denied and the claims that have not been expressly contested. Therefore, in exercise of its power to determine the scope of its own competence (compétence de la compétence), in each case, the Court will determine the need to establish the facts, as they were presented by the parties or taking into account other elements from the body of evidence.14 29. The Court understands that, by not denying the facts that the Commission described in its application (supra para. 25), the State has accepted these facts, which constitute the factual basis of these proceedings. The Court observes that the representatives made factual affirmations relating to the merits of this matter15 that are not in the Inter-American 14 Cf. Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 54, para. 32; Constitutional Court v. Peru. Competence. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 55, para. 31; Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 45; and Yvon Neptune v. Haiti. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 180, para. 19. 15 The different facts described by the representatives are related to: (1) the supposed “systematic concealment” by the police and judicial authorities of the officials who allegedly intervened in the detention and alleged torture of Juan Carlos Bayarri Cf. case file No. 13,745/04 before Court of First Instance No. 41 of the Federal Capital “Zelaya, Luis Alberto: Failure to Comply with the Obligation to Prosecute Criminals” (pleadings and motions brief, merits file, tome I, folio 196); (2) the placing of an explosive device in front of the residence of the alleged victim’s next of kin Cf. file No. 7/989, entitled “Pubic Intimidation by placing an explosive device” before National Federal Criminal Court No. 3 of La Plata (pleadings and motions brief, merits file, tome I, folio 188); (3) the criminal action filed against the alleged victim for supposed perjury committed when denouncing the police