B.1. The facts 17. The Court affirms in the instant case that the State accepted all the facts set forth in the Report on the Merits concerning “(a) the dismissal from his position as member of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal by resolution of the National Congress” and “(b) the lack of a mechanism for appealing the resolutions in keeping with the standards of Article 25 of the American Convention.” The Court understands that the State has thus recognized the facts expounded in paragraphs 37 to 43 of the Report on the Merits in the section on dismissal from the Supreme Electoral Tribunal. The Court notes that the other facts outlined in the Report on the Merits were not included in the act of acquiescence. These facts, given in paragraphs 30 through 36 of the Report on the Merits, are: (i) the context; (ii) the relevant regulatory framework, and (iii) the process by which the alleged victim was appointed to the Supreme Electoral Tribunal. B.2. The law 18. Cognizant of the violations already acknowledged by the State and the observations by the representatives and the Commission, the Court holds that the dispute has closed concerning the rights enshrined in Article 8 of the Convention, in injury of Carlos Julio Aguinaga Aillón, which were violated by the procedure under which he was dismissed from his position as a member of the TSE. The same is true for the violation of Article 25 of the Convention, as a result of the limits that Order 01-27 of the Supreme Court and Resolution 25-160 of the Constitutional Court placed on the use of the motion for constitutional relief, which undercut Mr. Aguinaga Aillón’s rights. 19. The Court therefore deems that the State has acknowledged its international responsibility for violating Articles 8(1), 8(2)(b), 8(2)(c), 8(2)(h) and 25 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, in injury of Mr. Aguinaga Aillón. The Court notes, in view of the terms in which the State acknowledged responsibility, that the remaining unresolved dispute concerns the alleged violations of the guarantee of judicial independence, the principle of freedom from ex post facto laws, and political rights (raised only by the representatives), enshrined in Articles 8(1), 9 and 23 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. B.3. Reparations 20. Still outstanding is the dispute regarding the validity of the specific measures of redress requested by the Commission and the representatives, which the Court will therefore examine. B.4. Assessment of the acquiescence 21. The State’s acquiescence is a partial acceptance of the facts and a partial acknowledgment of the alleged violations. The Court values the recognition of international responsibility as a positive contribution to the development of these proceedings and the observance of the principles that inspire the Convention, as well as to the alleged victim’s needs for reparation.8 The State’s recognition produces full legal effects under the terms of Articles 62 and 64 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. The Court also notes that acquiescence to specific, concrete facts and violations may have effects and consequences for its analysis 8 Cf. Case of Benavides Cevallos v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 19, 1998. Series C No. 38, para. 57, and Case of Deras García et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 26. 6