the importance of the judgement in this case to ensure that similar acts are not repeated in Ecuador and in the region; d) the context of persecution, harassment, stigmatization, intimidation and disparagement suffered by the alleged victim and his family, which caused them deep anguish, suffering and fear; e) that evidence obtained through torture was used in the disciplinary process; f) the continued violation of human rights, impunity and stigmatization resulting from a failure to abide by the ruling of the then highest court for the defense and protection of human rights in Ecuador (Court of Constitutional Guarantees), and g) the reparations proposed by the State are incomplete and “do not fully honor the principle of good faith.” 30. The Commission positively assessed the State’s partial acknowledgment of responsibility. However, it stressed the importance of defining the factual basis for said responsibility, in order to determine its scope. The Commission considered that the determinations of fact and law and the measures of reparation related to the criminal proceedings against Mr. Grijalva Bueno remain in dispute. Therefore, it considered that the Court should make the corresponding determinations of all the facts, the legal consequences thereof and the reparations, in accordance with the magnitude and nature of the violations in this case. Finally, it asked the Court to determine the legal effects of Ecuador’s partial acknowledgement of responsibility. B. Considerations of the Court 31. Based on Articles 62 and 64 of the Rules, and in exercise of its international powers for the protection of human rights, a matter of international public order, it is incumbent upon this Court to ensure that acts of acknowledgement of responsibility are acceptable for the purposes sought by the inter-American system.13 The Court will now analyze the situation raised in this specific case. 32. This Court recalls that the pleadings and motions brief was not admitted and that the submission of observations regarding the State’s partial acquiescence did not constitute an opportunity for the alleged victim’s representative to argue matters of fact or law and, if applicable, reparations. Consequently, when assessing the scope of State’s partial acquiescence, the Court will not consider those facts that are outside the factual framework described by the Commission in its Merits Report, nor the legal arguments and requests for reparations made by the representative. B.1 Regarding the facts 33. As is evident from the terms of its partial acquiescence, the State expressly acknowledged the following facts: a) that the reports which were used to dismiss Mr. Grijalva Bueno from the ranks of the armed forces involved a military agent who had been denounced months earlier by the alleged victim for having committed serious human rights violations; b) that other authorities who were denounced by Mr. Grijalva Bueno for allegedly committing human rights violations and who formed part of the Council of Senior Officers that ordered his dismissal, had a direct interest in the outcome of the investigation, since they were involved in a dispute with the alleged victim, c) that Mr. Grijalva Bueno did not have an opportunity to examine the evidence or participate and defend himself in the disciplinary procedure that ended with his discharge; d) that no grounds were provided for the decision to dismiss him or an Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008. Series C No. 177, para. 24, and Case of Almeida v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 17, 2020. Series C No. 416, para. 18. 13 9