international public order that transcends the will of the parties, it is incumbent upon the Court to ensure that the acts of acknowledgment are acceptable for the objectives that the inter-American system seeks to achieve. In this task, the Court is not limited merely to observing, recording, or taking note of the acknowledgment made by the State, or to verifying the formal conditions of the said acts, but rather it must relate them to the nature and gravity of the alleged violations, the requirements and interests of justice, the particular circumstances of the specific case, and the attitude and position of the parties, so that, insofar as possible and in exercise of its competence, it is able to assess the truth about what happened.13 21. In the instant case, the Court finds that, as in other cases involving Colombia before the Court,14 the State’s partial acknowledgement of the facts, acquiescence with regard to some of the legal claims, and expression of willingness to “achieve comprehensive reparation for the victims,” constitute a positive contribution to these proceedings, to the exercise of the underlying principles of the American Convention 15 and, in part, to satisfying the needs for reparation of the victims of human rights violations.16 Furthermore, as in other cases,17 the Court considers that the acknowledgement made by the State produces full legal effects according to Articles 57 and 58 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, and has considerable symbolic value to guarantee the non-repetition of similar acts. 22. Taking into account the terms of the State’s acknowledgment and the corresponding observations of the Commission and the representative, the Court considers that the international responsibility of the State is no longer in dispute for the violation of Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) of the American Convention, to the detriment of Luis Gonzalo Vélez Restrepo, his wife Aracelly Román Amariles, and their children Juliana and Mateo Vélez Román, owing to the physical attack on Mr. Vélez Restrepo perpetrated by members of the National Army on August 29, 1996, when, in his capacity as a news cameraman, he was filming the riots that occurred during a protest demonstration organized by cocagrowing peasants. In addition, the dispute has ceased regarding the violation of Article 13 If the respondent informs the Court of its acceptance of the facts or its total or partial acquiescence to the claims stated in the presentation of the case or the brief submitted by the presumed victims or their representatives, the Court shall decide, having heard the opinions of all those participating in the proceedings and at the appropriate procedural moment, whether to accept that acquiescence, and shall rule upon its juridical effects. Article 64. Continuation of a case Bearing in mind its responsibility to protect human rights, the Court may decide to continue the consideration of a case notwithstanding the existence of the conditions indicated in the preceding articles. 13 Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008. Series C No. 177, para. 24, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and reparations. Judgment of June 27, 2012. Series C No. 245, para. 26. 14 Cf. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010, para. 18; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 46; Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 165, para. 20; Case of the La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 29, and Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 79. 15 Cf. Case of El Caracazo v. Venezuela. Merits. Judgment of November 11, 1999. Series C No. 58, para. 43, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and reparations, para. 27. 16 Cf. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, para. 18, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2011 Series C No. 232. 17 Cf. inter alia, Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008. Series C No. 177, paras. 23 to 25, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, para. 18. 10