7 whereabouts of the remains were [made] known [and] and the forced disappearance of the victim concluded […].” 28. On the other hand, the State expressly indicated in its answer to the application that "it d[id] not acquiesce to the Commission’s application and [to] the brief containing pleadings[,] motions, and evidence of the next of kin regarding the request for reparations presented.” It stated that “there is no controversy as to the beneficiaries;” however, it brought to the Tribunal's attention "its objection to the extremely elevated [requests] of the [representatives].” On this latter point, it requested the Court “to consider the will and disposition of the State with respect to the measures of reparations that it has been implementing,” referred to in the answer to the application, during the public hearing, and in its final arguments (supra paras. 5, 8, and 10). 29. In addition, it should be noted that during the processing of the instant case, and in the answer to the application in particular, the State did not refer to the arguments of the representatives regarding the violation of Article 24 (Right to Equal Protection) of the American Convention to the detriment of the next of kin of Messrs. Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas and José Luis Ibsen Peña. The violation of this right was not alleged by the Commission in the application. 30. The Inter-American Commission stated that it valued the act of acknowledgment of international responsibility made by the Bolivian State on December 10, 2008, during the processing of the instant case before that body, an act repeated in the answer to the application and at the public hearing, as it "constitute[d] a positive contribution to the development of the proceedings and to the observance of the principles that inspire the American Convention.” It considered that “this is a full acknowledgment of the violations of the American Convention on Human Rights and the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons alleged by the Commission in its application[. Thus,] it underst[ood] that the controversy as to those violations h[ad] ceased.” The Commission requested that the Tribunal “accepts the State’s acquiescence and, as a result, to declare the international responsibility of the Bolivian State [and] includes in the corresponding judgment a detailed narrative of the facts, given their effectiveness in repairing and their contribution to establishing the truth.” 31. The Commission also noted that the “issue raised by the State regarding the date on which the forced disappearance of Rainer Ibsen Cárdenas concluded is a question of fact that the Court must determine in its judgment; however, it has no effect on the acknowledgment of responsibility for the violations alleged, nor does it imply in any way a repudiation of the Court’s jurisdiction to rule on all of the facts of the present case.” 32. The representatives supported the arguments of the Inter-American Commission in the application and at the public hearing. They noted, however, that “the State[,] far from assuming a clear willingness to acknowledge its international commitments, [has instead] been assuming [all] kinds of contradictory positions.” Furthermore, they indicated that “an apology was offered [to the alleged victims at the public hearing], but afterwards, [the latter were] accused of having [committed] an immoral act for having presented a request for reparations.” 33. In accordance with Articles 56(2) and 58 of the Rules of Procedure, and in exercise of its powers of international legal protection of human rights, the Court may determine whether an acknowledgment of international responsibility made by a respondent State offers sufficient grounds, under the American Convention, for continuing with the adjudication of the merits of the case and, if applicable, awarding reparations, costs, and