C. Observations of the Commission 13. In its observations, the Commission expressed its “satisfaction with the friendly settlement agreement and the acknowledgment of responsibility of the State based on the considerations of fact and of law of the report on merits of the Inter-American Commission.” It also noted that “the reparation measures agreed by the parties include various components of comprehensive reparation in conformity with the case law of the Inter-American Court.” Furthermore, the Commission reiterated the considerations included in the note of submission of this case, in that it can allow the Court to expand its case law on the duty to investigate human rights violations committed due to excessive use of force by members of the armed forces in contexts of duties of law enforcement, and the prohibition to invoke non bis in idem to perpetuate situations of impunity derived from the application of the military criminal jurisdiction in cases of human rights violations. The Commission requested the Court to take into account its observations when ruling on the Agreement. D. Considerations of the Court 14. On previous occasions, similar to this case, the Court has had the opportunity to consider and assess friendly settlement agreements. 9 In this regard, it is worth recalling Article 63 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, which reads: “[w]hen the Commission; the victims or alleged victims, or their representatives; the respondent State; or, if applicable, the petitioning State, in a case before the Court inform it of the existence of a friendly settlement, compromise, or any other occurrence likely to lead to a settlement of the dispute, the Court shall rule upon its admissibility and juridical effects at the appropriate procedural time.” Consequently, in conformity with that rule, this Court must determine the admissibility and juridical effects of the friendly settlement agreement reached by the parties. 10 15. The Court also notes that, as can be inferred from Article 63 cited above, it is possible that during the proceedings before this Court the parties may reach friendly settlements, whose admissibility it must assess. Reaching this type of solution can lead to a more timely and effective reparation of the victims of the case. In addition, this contributes to the objectives of the inter-American system for the protection of human rights, especially to finding just solutions to the specific and structural problems of a case. 11 16. Furthermore, the Court notes that in conformity with said article as well as Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure, 12 in exercising its mandate for the international protection of human rights, a matter of international public order that goes beyond the will of the parties, it has the duty to ensure that friendly settlement agreements are acceptable for the purposes of the inter-American system. This task is not limited solely to taking note of such agreements or verifying that the formal conditions are met; it must also examine them in relation to the 9 Cf. Case of Benavides Cevallos v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 19, 1998. Series C No. 38, and Case of Escaleras Mejía et al. v. Honduras. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 361. Cf. Case of Pacheco Teruel et al. v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 27, 2012, Series C No. 241, para. 18, and Case of Escaleras Mejía et al. v. Honduras. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 361, para. 15. 10 11 Cf. Case of Pacheco Teruel et al. v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 27, 2012, Series C No. 241, para. 19, and Case of Escaleras Mejía et al. v. Honduras. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 361, para. 16. 12 Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court: “Continuation of a 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.” 6