12. Deliberation of the case. - The Court deliberated on this judgment on January 25, 26 and 30, 2023. III JURISDICTION 13. The Court is competent to hear the instant case pursuant to Article 62(3) of the Convention, as Ecuador ratified the American Convention on Human Rights on December 28, 1977, and recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on July 24, 1984. IV RECOGNITION OF RESPONSIBILITY A. Partial recognition of responsibility by the State and observations by the representatives and the Commission 14. The State said in the public hearing that it partially acknowledged its international liability in the case “for violating Article 8 and Article 25 of the American Convention in injury of Carlos Aguinaga.” It also said that it would retract its preliminary objection. Its final written arguments reconfirmed this recognition of international responsibility “for violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention in injury of Carlos Aguinaga.” The acknowledgment applied to: “(a) dismissal from his position as a member of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal by resolution of the National Congress” and “(b) lack of a mechanism for appealing the resolution consistent with the provisions of Article 25 of the American Convention.” The State also asked that its recognition of responsibility “be weighed in the same good faith with which it is being extended, and thus given useful effect.” 15. The Commission welcomed the State’s recognition of international responsibility as extended in the public hearing. It clarified that the Article 8 recognition covered the way in which Mr. Aguinaga Aillón had been dismissed, which under the terms of the Ecuadorian Constitution, should have entailed an impeachment process. It added that the State had acknowledged responsibility for violation of Article 25 of the Convention on the grounds that the motion for constitutional review did not meet the standards set for challenging the resolution to dismiss Mr. Aguinaga Aillón. The Commission said, therefore, that this “acquiescence is a contribution toward honoring the dignity of the victims and offering redress. However, because this recognition is only partial and generic, the Commission will submit its observations on the questions items that remain in dispute.” The representatives made no specific comments on the State’s recognition of responsibility. B. Considerations of the Court 16. In keeping with Articles 62 and 64 of the Rules of Procedure, and in the exercise of its powers of international judicial protection of human rights, which is a matter of international public order, the Court must ensure that acts of acquiescence be acceptable for the purposes sought by the inter-American system.7 The Court will now discuss the situation raised by the case at hand. Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008. Series C No. 177, para. 24, and Case of Deras García et al. v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 25, 2022. Series C No. 462, para. 21. 7 5