12 jurisdiction, is empowered to declare the international responsibility of a State Party to the Convention for the violation of its provisions.5 58. The Court, in the exercise of its inherent powers of international judicial protection of human rights, may determine whether a defendant State’s acknowledgement of international responsibility provides satisfactory grounds, in the terms of the American Convention, for continuing to hear the merits and determining possible reparations. To this end, the Court must examine the situation in each specific case.6 59. In its answer to the application (supra para. 19), Colombia acknowledged its international responsibility for the violation of Articles 4(1) (Right to Life), 5(1) (Right to Humane Treatment), 7(1) (Right to Personal Liberty) and 21(1) (Right to Property) of the Convention, to the detriment of those persons indicated in the application filed by the Commission (supra para. 3). In addition, the State indicated that, “in this case, the said violations involve[d] a violation of the obligation to respect the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention (Article 1(1) thereof, which [was] attributable to the State, pursuant to international law, given the participation of its agents in the facts.” 60. The State also affirmed that it had not violated Articles 19 (Rights of the Child), 8(1) (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25(1) (Right to Judicial Protection) of the Convention, alleged by both the Commission and the representatives (supra paras. 3 and 18), or Articles 6 (Freedom from Slavery) and 22 (Freedom of Movement and Residence) of the Convention, alleged by the representatives (supra para. 18). 61. The State did not refer to the alleged violation of Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) of the Convention, to the detriment of the persons executed and their next of kin, as alleged by the representatives in their requests and arguments brief. Also, Colombia did not refer to the alleged violation of Articles 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 7 (Right to Personal Liberty) and 21 (Right to Property) of the Convention, to the detriment of the persons indicated by the representatives in their requests and arguments brief (supra para. 18), who were not included in the State’s acknowledgement (supra para. 19). Also, the representatives had requested that “those persons whose identity is established during the proceedings” before the Court should be included as alleged victims in this case, based on the violation of Articles 5, 7, 21 and 22 of the Convention (supra para. 18). 62. In its answer to the application, the State indicated that “the reparations recognized by the State […] in the conciliation hearings conducted in the administrative jurisdiction should be considered fair and sufficient in relation to the rights to life and property, in the specific cases that were the subject of this procedure.” In addition, it indicated that it was “willing to submit a proposal for reparations, drawn up in collaboration with the petitioners who duly accredit their standing.” Finally, it stated that “the recognition of reparations and costs is 5 Cf. Case of Baldeón García. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 37; Case of Blanco Romero et al.. Judgment of November 28, 2005. Series C No. 138, para. 54; and Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, para. 57. 6 Cf. Case of Baldeón García, supra note 5, para. 38; Case of Blanco Romero et al., supra note 5, para. 55; and Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas, supra note 5, para. 58.