18. For their part, the representatives stated that that “the acquiescence […] would appear to refer only to the facts that occurred on November 25,” and indicated “the need to make a legal and factual analysis of the facts relating to the impeachment.” In addition, they stated that: “The State shares with the representatives of the victims the perception that the removal of judges, even when carried out by a decision that is not formally encompassed in a disciplinary proceeding, requires an increased guarantee in which the principle of legality, judicial guarantees, and judicial protection are applicable; in other words, it accepts that, in case of doubt, it should be assumed that the removal of a judge is punitive in nature. The State did not refer to the impeachments of December 1 and 8, 2004, in its acknowledgement of responsibility, but did do so in its final arguments in order to say that the judges of the Constitutional Court are no longer subject to impeachment. In Ecuador, impeachment still exists against some authorities of the Executive; a subsequent constitutional reform could again expand the number of public authorities subject to it. Consequently, […] it is very important for Ecuador, and for the other countries of the continent, that this […] Court develop the standards for due process of law in the case of the mechanisms, known as impeachment, and whether or not they are compatible with the principle of judicial independence.” B. Considerations of the Court 19. According to Articles 62 and 64 of the Rules of Procedure,5 and in exercise of its authority as regards the international judicial protection of human rights, a matter that goes beyond the will of the parties, it is incumbent on the Court to ensure that acts of acquiescence are acceptable for the purposes of the inter-American system. In this task, it does not merely take note, confirm, and record the acknowledgement made by the State, or verify the formal conditions of the said acts, but it must relate them to the nature and severity of the violations that have been alleged, the requirements and interests of justice, the particular circumstances of the specific case, and the attitude and position of the parties,6 so that it can clarify the truth of what has happened, to the extent possible and in exercise of its competence.7 20. In this case, the Court finds that the State’s partial acquiescence to some legal claims makes a positive contribution to the development of these proceedings and to the exercise of the principles that inspire the American Convention,8 and to the partial satisfaction of the needs for reparation of the victims of human rights violations. 9 In addition, the Court considers, as it had in other cases,10 that this acknowledgement made 5 Articles 62 and 64 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure establish: Article 62. Acquiescence. 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 tabled by the alleged 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. 6 Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008. Series C No. 177, para. 24, and Case of García and family members v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2012 Series C No. 258, para. 16. 7 Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina, para. 24, and Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. ("Diario Militar") v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2012 Series C No. 253, para. 20. 8 Cf. Case of El Caracazo v. Venezuela. Merits. Judgment of November 11, 1999. Series C No. 58, para. 43, and Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. ("Diario Militar") v. Guatemala, para. 28. 9 Cf. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 18, and Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. ("Diario Militar") v. Guatemala, para. 28. 8