abide by the principles of sound judicial discretion, within the corresponding legal framework.13 25. Regarding the documentation presented by expert witness Pablo Balmaceda and witnesses Rodrigo Villagra Carron and Lida Acuña at the end of the public hearing held in this case, as well as the documentation presented by the representatives with their final written arguments, the Court admits them in application of Article 47(1) of its Rules of Procedure, because they are useful in this case and were not contested and their authenticity or veracity was not questioned. 26. In relation to the documentation requested by the Court on May 4, 2010, (supra para. 12), which was submitted by the parties, the Court decides to admit it because it finds it useful, in keeping with Article 47(1) of the Rules of Procedure. V OFFER OF A FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT, ACQUIESCENCE, AND REQUEST TO SUSPEND THE PROCEEDINGS 1. Regarding the offer of acquiescence of the State a friendly settlement and the 27. When answering the application, the State indicated that it “has not violated the right to communal property of the Xákmok Kásek's established in domestic law, but recognizes that, due to current circumstances, which cannot be attributed to the State, it has not been able to satisfy that right to date.” In addition, the State asked the Court “to reject the claims made” by the Commission and the representatives, and offered a “friendly settlement,” an offer that it repeated during the public hearing. In addition, the State indicated that it “acquiesced to the request for reparation.” 28. The representatives indicated that they confirmed their unwillingness to accept a friendly settlement, because its purpose, “in the Community’s experience, was to delay, unnecessarily, the Court’s ruling on the merits of this case.” They indicated that in previous years the Community had been “open to the possibility of a friendly settlement of the case on several occasions and, each time, the State had failed to comply, even minimally, with what had been discussed.” 29. The Commission observed that on several occasions the State had offered what is known as a “friendly settlement.” It noted that, although the State had made the said offers during the proceedings before the Commission, the conciliatory intention was never transformed into the implementation of concrete measures. 30. According to Articles 56(2) and 57 of the Rules of Procedure, and in exercise of its powers concerning the international protection of human rights, the Court can determine whether the offer of a friendly settlement or an acquiescence made by a defendant State offers sufficient grounds, in the terms of the Convention, to continue examining the merits and determining eventual reparations and costs. Since the proceedings before this Court refer to the protection of human rights, a matter of international public order that transcends the will of the parties, the Court must ensure that such acts are acceptable for the objectives that the inter-American system seeks to accomplish. In this task, the Court does not limit itself merely to verifying the formal conditions of the said acts; but rather, it must relate them to the nature and 13 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs, supra note 9, para. 76; Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 8, para. 47, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra note 8, para. 53. 8