nature and seriousness of the alleged violations, the requirements and interest of justice, the specific circumstances of the case and the attitude and position of the parties. 13 In this regard, the agreement must not infringe, either directly or indirectly, the purpose of the American Convention. 17. For these purposes, the Court must analyze the situation in each specific case, confirming that the Agreement, which may be submitted to the Court at any stage of the contentious proceedings, is signed by the parties. After forwarding it to the parties and to the Commission and receiving, as applicable, the corresponding observations, the Court must verify that the formal and material requirements are met in order to sanction the agreement by means of a judgment. 18. The Court confirms that the agreement submitted contemplates a solution reached by the parties regarding the facts and the determination of human rights violations, pursuant to those determined in the Report on Merits, as well as reparation measures. Moreover, based on the manner in which the State formulated its acknowledgment of responsibility, it also understands the considerations of law that led the Commission to conclude that such violations had occurred to the detriment of the victims of this case. 19. Furthermore, the Court notes the willingness of the parties to reach a solution to the dispute in this case; particularly, it highlights the procedural stage at which it was reached. In this case, it occurred before the representatives submitted their brief containing pleadings, motions and evidence and the State submitted its response to petition. This allows the Court to issue a judgment much sooner than if it had carried out the international proceedings. Thus, the dispute ended without the need to hold a public hearing or conduct the final written procedure. 14 20. Based on the terms of the Agreement signed, the Court considers that the dispute has ended regarding the facts and the arguments on the violation of the rights to life and humane treatment to the detriment of Mirey Trueba Arciniega, and the rights to humane treatment, fair trial and judicial protection to the detriment of his next of kin. Thus, it is not pertinent for the Court to make its own determination of the facts and juridical effects, as would be performed in the event of a dispute regarding the facts or the applicable laws. However, in order to ensure a better understanding of the case, the Court will summarize the facts and background of the case based on the contents of Report on Merits No. 47/16 (infra Chapter V). Subsequently, it will perform an analysis in order to determine whether to sanction the agreement (infra Chapter VI). 13 Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008. Series C No. 177, para. 24, and Case of Escaleras Mejía et al. v. Honduras. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 361, para. 17. 14 Cf. Case of García Cruz and Sánchez Silvestre v. Mexico. Judgment of November 26, 2013. Series C 273, para. 19, and Case of Escaleras Mejía et al. v. Honduras. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 361, para. 20. 7