8 expenses.6 Moreover, the Court notes that the evolution of the system for the protection of human rights allows that, nowadays, alleged victims or their next of kin may autonomously present their brief containing pleadings, motions, and evidence and submit claims that may or may not coincide with those of the Commission. Therefore, when it submits a statement of acquiescence, the State must clearly express whether it also accepts the claims presented by the alleged victims or their next of kin.7 34. Given that the proceedings before this Court relate to the protection of human rights, a matter of international public order that transcends the will of the parties, the Tribunal must ensure that acts of acquiescence are acceptable for the purposes the Inter-American system of human rights seeks to fulfill. In doing so, the Court must not only verify the formal conditions of those acts, but also examine them in relation to the nature and gravity of the violations alleged, the requirements and interests of justice, the specific circumstances surrounding a particular case, and the attitude and position of the parties.8 35. For the determination of the legal effects of the acquiescence and acknowledgment of responsibility made by the State, the Court takes into account, in particular, that the State admitted the facts presented in the Commission's application (supra paras. 5 and 24 to 26), although it: 1) denied that the location and identification of the remains of Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas had taken almost 37 years; 2) did not acquiesce to the claims of reparation presented in this case; and 3) did not refer to the alleged violation of the right to equal protection recognized in Article 24 of the American Convention to the detriment of the next of kin of Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas and José Luis Ibsen Peña or to the facts related to those allegations (supra paras. 27 to 29). 36. In view of the foregoing, the Tribunal decides to accept the acknowledgment made by the State and to classify it as a partial acknowledgment of the facts and partial acquiescence to the legal claims contained in both the Commission’s application and the representatives’ brief containing pleadings and motions. The Tribunal finds that the controversy continues as to several factual and legal questions related to the alleged forced disappearance of Mr. Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas, the reparations requested by the representatives, and the alleged violation of Article 24 of the American Convention. Therefore, the Court shall address these issues in the corresponding chapters of this Judgment, based on its jurisprudence and the evidence in the case file. * * * 6 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 105; Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2010. Series C No. 212, para. 17; and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, and Reparations. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 107. 7 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala, supra note 6, para. 29; Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, para. 47; and Case of the “Las Dos Erres” Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 29. 8 Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008. Series C No. 177, para. 24; Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 61; and Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 6, para. 18.