seriousness of the alleged violations, the requirements and interest of justice, the particular circumstances of the specific case, and the attitude and positions of the parties.14 31. Regarding the offer of a “friendly settlement,” such an arrangement is conducted based on the willingness of the parties. In this case, the alleged victims have not accepted the conditions set out by the State in its proposal; consequently, the Court must continue with the analysis of the case. 32. In relation to the above-mentioned “acquiescence” of the State, the Court observes that Paraguay simultaneously denies the facts and the violations of the Convention of which it is accused. Thus, it does not acknowledge international responsibility and the entire dispute regarding the merits of the case remains. It is only in the area of reparations that the State accepts several of the measures of reparation requested by the Commission and the representatives. Accordingly, the Court decides to examine the disputed factual and legal issues. If the State is sentenced for violating any human right, the Court will take into account its acceptance of the requested measures of reparation, but will define the measures that are most appropriate to provide full reparation to the victims, in keeping with the evidence that has been provided and the violations declared. 2. The State’s request to suspend these proceedings 33. The State requested “the suspension of these proceedings,” because the contradictions found in the name and ethnic roots of the Community would prevent titling land in its favor and would not meet “the requirements of the Indigenous Peoples Statute and international law.” It referred to several briefs submitted by the representatives, internal legal documents, and statements by members of the Community that, in its opinion, would cause confusion concerning the identification or ethnic roots of the Community because, in some cases, it appears as belonging to the Enxet people, in others as Enxet-Lengua, and in still others as Sanapaná. The State explained that ethnic roots or membership in a people is an “essential element for the transfer of property.” Furthermore, it indicated that, owing to confusion over the name of the Community, its leaders were registered as leaders of the “Zalazar Community,”15 which would make it impossible to title the land in their favor until they rectified this documentation.” 34. The representatives argued that the Community is multi-ethnic. They indicated that, since the processing of the case before the Commission, they have indicated that the Community is composed of Sanapanás and Lenguas, and this is the name accepted by the Community, as well as “by the scientific community and society in general, that characterizes [the said] ethnic groups as belonging to a common people, the Enxet people.” They explained that, when the Lenguas began to be known as Enxet some confusion arose among those who “had not followed the scientific advances regarding these peoples.” 14 Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008. Series C No. 177, para. 24; Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009. Series C No. 196, para. 24, and Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 25. 15 In various documents presented by the parties, reference is made to the ranch or area of “Salazar” or “Zalazar” without making a distinction. In this judgment, when the Court cites the arguments of one of the parties or a probative document, it will use the spelling included in the original document. However, when the Court motu proprio refers to the said ranch or area, it will use the spelling “Salazar.” 9