the rights recognized in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Garzón Guzmán. 16. Finally, it recognized its international responsibility for the violation of Articles 8(1), 25(1) and 5(1) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, and Article I(b) of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons for the violations that occurred after its entry into force, to the detriment of the next of kin of Mr. Garzón Guzmán, as indicated in the Merits Report. 17. The Commission took note of the State’s recognition of international responsibility and found it to be a positive contribution to the search for truth, justice and reparations and for the dignity of Mr. Garzón Guzmán and his family members. It, nevertheless, requested that the Court deliver a judgment in which it determine the scope of the recognition in light of the facts of the case and thus give it legal effect. It also asked the Court that it resolve the issues that the representative raised and determine the reparations. 18. The representative appreciated the importance of the State’s recognition of responsibility made during the public hearing and indicated that the recognition permitted the family of Mr. Garzón Guzmán to obtain justice. It requested that the Court declare the State’s international responsibility. B. Considerations of the Court 19. The Court recalls that, based on Articles 62 and 64 of its Rules and in exercise of its authority to oversee the judicial protection of human rights, a matter of international public order, it is incumbent on it to ensure that the acknowledgement of responsibility is acceptable for the purposes sought by the inter-American system.8 The Court, therefore, will analyze the scope of the recognition of responsibility, considering its effects in relation to the facts of this case, the legal claims and the measures of reparation. B.1 Regarding the facts 20. Ecuador accepted “the facts as they were described by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in its Merits Report No. 22/17 issued on March 18, 2017.” The Court finds that no controversy remains on the factual framework of the case. It, nonetheless, notes that there remains a controversy on the determination of the victims in this case. It will refer to this matter at a later stage (infra paras. 31 and 32). B.2 Regarding the legal claims 21. The State accepted the claims contained in the brief of submission of the case and accepted that the response of the national authorities was incompatible with international standards and affected the rights that the Commission found to be violated. 22. The Court notes that the recognition of responsibility expressly encompasses all of the violations of the American Convention on Human Rights and of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons alleged by the Commission. However, the representative also alleged the violation of Article 2 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles I and II of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons with respect to which Cf. Case of Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 17 and Case of Guerrero, Molina et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 3, 2021. Series C No. 424, para. 18. 8 6