7 35. Now, the Court will proceed to determine: (a) the scope of the acknowledgement of international responsibility made by the State and (b) the extent of the subsisting controversy. a) 36. Acknowledgment of international responsibility Article 53(2) of the Rules of procedure sets forth that If the respondent informs the Court of its acquiescence to the claims of the party that has brought the case as well as to the claims of the representatives of the alleged victims, their next of kin or representatives, the Court, after hearing the opinions of the other parties to the case, shall decide whether such acquiescence and its juridical effects are acceptable. In that event, the Court shall determine the appropriate reparations and indemnities. 37. The Inter-American Court, exercising its contentious jurisdiction, applies and interprets the American Convention, and when a case is submitted to its jurisdiction, the Court has the power and authority to determine the international responsibility of a State Party to the Convention for any violations to the provisions of the same.1 38. The Court, exercising its powers of international judicial protection of human rights, may determine whether an acknowledgment of international responsibility made by a respondent State provides sufficient ground, under the terms of the American Convention, to proceed with the consideration of the merits of the case and the determination of the possible reparations and legal costs. To such effect, the Court will analyze the situation in each particular case.2 39. In its answer to the application (supra para. 20), the State “acknowledged its international responsibility for the unlawful detention, cruel, unlawful and degrading treatment and extrajudicial execution of Bernabé Baldeón-García upon the violation of Article” 4 (Right to Life), Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) and Article 7 (Right to Personal Liberty) of the Convention, as regards Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) of the same, in detriment of Bernabé Baldeón-García. 40. Furthermore, Peru “acknowledged the damage caused to Guadalupe YllaconzaRamirez de Baldéon (wife of the [alleged] victim;) Crispin, Fidela, Roberto, Segundina, Miguelita, Perseveranda, Vicente and Sabina Baldeon-Yllaconza (children of the [alleged] victim). Moreover, the State also acknowledged its responsibility for the “delay in the administration of justice within the scope of Article 8(1) [(Right to a Fair Trial)] of the American Convention, in detriment of the next of kin abovementioned.” However, the State “pointed out that although the existence of a violation of the right to a fair trial could be determined, it was necessary to make it clear that said violation could be traced back to the date on which the event occurred and up to the commencement of the transition to democracy, because since November 2000 there is an environment of Institutional freedom and autonomy so that the General Attorney’s Office and the Judiciary and any competent authorities may serve in their positions free from any kind of interference whatsoever by any individual or political body.” 1 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripan Massacre”. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 64; and Case of Gómez-Palomino. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, para. 27. 2 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripan Massacre”, supra note 1, para. 65; Case of Gómez-Palomino, supra note 1, para. 28; and Case of Huilca-Tecse. Judgment of March 3, 2005. Series C No. 121, para. 42.