13 4) THE GOVERNMENT, THE COMMISSION AND THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE FAMILY ask the Honorable Inter-American Court of Human Rights to hold the hearing on March 6, 2003 for the parties to submit their arguments and for the Honorable Court to establish the corresponding reparations, pursuant to acknowledgment of international responsibility by the Republic of Argentina in point 1 of the [...] agreement. 33. Regarding the explanatory document on the friendly settlement agreement, delegate Goldman, with the consent of the State and of the representatives of the next of kin of the alleged victim, read it at the first public hearing. Said document sets forth: The representatives of the State of Argentina, the delegates of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and the representatives of the victims appear before the Honorable Inter-American Court of Human Rights to clarify the extent of clause one of the friendly settlement agreement dated February 26, 2003. In this regard, the State acknowledges its international responsibility for violation of Articles 2, 7, 5, 19, 4, 8 and 25 of the American Convention, and therefore recognizes that it is willing to make full reparations. The State recognizes that the arrest was illegal. This was so because it applied provisions that were later declared unconstitutional such as memorandum 40, which was contrary to international standards, and also because domestic provisions were breached that establish the obligation of police officials to notify the parents, and to inform the minors of the cause of their arrest, and for a Judge to intervene forthwith. As a consequence of the above, subparagraphs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Article 7 of the Convention were breached. The State acknowledges responsibility for violation of the right to life and to humane treatment, under the terms of the agreement, due to inappropriate exercise of its duty of custody. Based on the international responsibility for violations of Articles 4, 5 and 7, the State acknowledges responsibility for violation of Article 19, for not adopting protection measures required by status as a minor. The State acknowledges violation of Articles 8 and 25. This is because, based on the specific circumstances of the case, international standards regarding reasonable terms have been surpassed and international standards regarding effective remedies have not been met. Considerations of the Court 34. Article 52 of the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights sets forth that: […] IF THE RESPONDENT INFORMS THE COURT OF ITS ACQUIESCENCE TO THE CLAIMS OF THE PARTY THAT HAS BROUGHT THE CASE, THE COURT, AFTER HEARING THE OPINIONS OF THE OTHER PARTIES TO THE CASE WILL DECIDE WHETHER SUCH ACQUIESCENCE AND ITS JURIDICAL EFFECTS ARE ACCEPTABLE. IN THAT EVENT, THE COURT SHALL DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE REPARATIONS AND INDEMNITIES. 35. Article 53 of the Rules of Procedure provides that: [W]HEN THE PARTIES TO A CASE BEFORE THE COURT INFORM IT OF THE EXISTENCE OF A FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT, COMPROMISE, OR ANY OTHER OCCURRENCE LIKELY TO LEAD TO A SETTLEMENT OF THE DISPUTE, THE COURT MAY IN THAT CASE AND AFTER HEARING THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE VICTIMS OR THEIR NEXT OF KIN, DECIDE TO DISCONTINUE THE HEARING AND STRIKE THE CASE FROM ITS LIST.