7 determine whether an acknowledgement of international responsibility by a respondent State offers sufficient grounds, in the terms of the Inter-American Convention, to proceed with consideration of the merits and a decision on reparations and costs. To this end, the Court examines the situation in each specific case.13 Accordingly, it will proceed to define the terms and scope of the partial acknowledgement of international responsibility made by the State and the extent of the subsisting dispute. 28. The Court observes, first, that the State failed to describe in detail all the facts that it acknowledged. Consequently, the Court finds that, by acquiescing to the claims of the Commission and the representatives concerning the violations of Articles 2, 5, 8 and 25 of the Convention, the State implicitly acknowledged the facts that, according to the application, comprise those violations, in the understanding that the application provides the factual framework for the proceedings.14 The Court therefore declares that the dispute has ceased concerning the facts and their juridical consequence in relation to Articles 2, 5, 8 and 25 of the Convention. 29. The State excluded from its acquiescence, the facts related to Articles 7 and 21 of the Convention, so the dispute on these points continues. 30. Second, the Court observes that the State accepted certain measures of reparation requested by the Commission. More precisely, the State indicated: Even before the delivery of the corresponding judgment by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the Ecuadorean State requests the representative of the alleged victims to cooperate in the process of the review and adaptation of Ecuadorean laws, specifically those regulating the criminal prosecution procedure for cases involving drug-trafficking crimes, in order to adapt certain norms that could lead to violations of the provisions of the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights. In addition, the Ecuadorean State will make every effort, through the National Constituent Assembly to be installed shortly, to adapt the constitutional guarantee of habeas corpus to international standards, […] so that the judicial verification of whether an arrest is in keeping with international conventions, the Constitution, and the law is no longer entrusted to the senior municipal representative. 31. Nevertheless, the State questioned the amounts requested by the representatives for compensation and reimbursement of costs and expenses, and did not refer to the other measures of reparation requested. 32. In the corresponding chapter, the Court will examine the measures of reparation that are appropriate in this case, bearing in mind the State’s observations. * * * 33. The Court considers that the State’s partial acknowledgement of international responsibility makes a positive contribution to the development of these proceedings, to the satisfactory functioning of the Inter-American jurisdiction over human rights, to the 13 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 105; Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 12, and Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 9. 14 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 59; Case of Zambrano Vélez et al., supra note 13, para. 17, and Case of the Rochela Massacre, supra note 13, para. 30.