underscores the goodwill shown by the State, both by its offer of a public apology and by its partial acknowledgement of responsibility with regard to the facts of this case, which was made for the first time before this Court. This allows the dispute concerning some of the main facts to cease, so that the Court may concentrate its efforts on other aspects of the case. Moreover, the Court considers that this partial acknowledgement of responsibility vindicates the search for justice by the victims and their next of kin who have fought to clarify what happened 29 years ago. The Court emphasizes the importance of the State’s partial acknowledgement and assesses it positively as a significant step towards clarifying the facts and overcoming impunity in this case. 27. In accordance with Articles 62 and 64 of the Rules of Procedure, 26 and in exercise of its powers concerning the international judicial protection of human rights, a matter of international public order that transcends the will of the parties, it is incumbent on this Court to ensure that acknowledgements of responsibility are in keeping with the objectives of the inter-American system. This task is not limited to merely confirming, recording or taking note of the acknowledgements made by the State or to verifying the formal conditions of such acknowledgements; rather the Court must weigh them in light of the nature and severity of the alleged violations, the requirements and interests of justice, the particular circumstances of the specific case, and the attitude and position of the parties, 27 so that it is able to determine, insofar as possible and in the exercise of its competence, the truth of what occurred. 28 The Court notes that the acknowledgment of specific isolated acts and violations may have effects and consequences on its analysis of the other alleged acts and violations in the same case, to the extent that they are all part of the same set of circumstances. 28. In this case, the State has presented a partial acknowledgement of responsibility for the violations of the American Convention or other inter-American instruments. The State has not admitted clearly and specifically all the facts described in the Merits Report of the Commission or the motions and arguments brief of the representatives, on which its partial acknowledgement of responsibility is based. Nevertheless, as it has in other cases, 29 the Court understands that Colombia has acknowledged the facts relating to the detention and torture suffered by Yolanda Santodomingo Albericci and Eduardo Matson Ospino, the forced disappearance of Carlos Augusto Rodríguez Vera and Irma Franco Pineda, and also specific irregularities committed in the course of the investigation (particularly “errors in the processing of the scene of the events and in the procedures to identify the mortal remains,” as well as “the unjustified delay in the clarification of the facts”). 29. Also, taking into account the violations acknowledged by the State (supra para. 21), as well as the observations of the representatives and of the Commission, the Court 26 Articles 62 and 64 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure establish: “Article 62. Acquiescence: If the respondent informs the Court of its acceptance of the facts or its total or partial acquiescence to the claims stated in the presentation of the case or the brief submitted by the alleged victims or their representatives, the Court shall decide, having heard the opinions of all those participating in the proceedings and at the appropriate procedural moment, whether to accept that acquiescence, and shall rule upon its juridical effects.” “Article 64. Continuation of the case. Bearing in mind its responsibility to protect human rights, the Court may decide to continue the consideration of a case notwithstanding the existence of the conditions indicated in the preceding articles.” 27 Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008. Series C No. 177, para. 24, and Case of Gutiérrez and family v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2013. Series C No. 271, para. 21. 28 Cf. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 17, and Case of Gutiérrez and family v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2013. Series C No. 271, para. 21. 29 Cf. Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009. Series C No. 196, para. 25, and Case of García and family members v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2012. Series C No. 258, para. 18. 14