6 Article 48(1)(f), for the simple reason that the States Parties should not be placed in the uncomfortable situation of having to request a friendly settlement, something that could be interpreted as a prior confession of their responsibility, with all the political and procedural risks that would entail. 22. The Government alleges that the Commission improperly attempts to apply to the instant case the opinion expressed by the Court in its judgment of June 26, 1987, on the preliminary objections in the Velásquez Rodríguez Case, pointing out that the circumstances that led to that decision are substantially different from those of the instant case; in the former, the Government of Honduras repeatedly denied that government or military authorities had ever participated in the forced disappearance of the victim and went so far as to deny that the disappearance had ever taken place. In the instant case, the Government has declared that at no time did it deny the actual material fact of the forced disappearance of a person. In addition, the various judicial proceedings brought with a view to finding the victim and identifying the authors of that act indicate an acknowledgment of the fact that Colombian military authorities could have taken part in the violations of individual rights. The focus of the dispute between the Government of Colombia and the Commission has to do with the identity of the persons responsible for the violations and whether the national judicial authorities duly fulfilled their obligations to detain those persons or to impose the corresponding sanctions. 23. In both its written response to the preliminary objections and in the hearing on that subject, the Commission, in turn, basically affirmed that ever since the Court’s judgment of June 26, 1987, on the preliminary objections filed by the Government of Honduras in the Velásquez Rodríguez Case, it has been firmly established that the friendly settlement procedure contemplated by the Convention must not be deemed to be a compulsory step for the Commission, but, rather, must be seen as an option that is open to the parties and to the Commission itself, depending on the conditions and characteristics of each individual case. In addition, the Commission claims that the abovementioned judgment confirmed the soundness of Article 45 of its Regulations in the sense that it does not contradict the Convention but, on the contrary, correctly implements Article 48(1)(f) thereof. 24. The Commission also points out that, in the Velásquez Rodríguez Case, the Court abstained from evaluating the conduct of the Government of Honduras in its dealings with the Commission and whether the claims of the parties had been presented with sufficient clarity and precision, because the fundamental issue was that the Commission was not under the obligation to always initiate the friendly settlement procedure. 25. The Court notes that the Commission and the Government each have a different interpretation of Articles 48(1)(f) of the Convention and 45 of the Commission’s Regulations, as also of the scope of the criterion established by the Court in ruling on the preliminary objections interposed by the Government of Honduras in the Velásquez Rodríguez, Godínez Cruz, and Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales Cases, as contained in its judgments of June 26, 1987, which are all similar in that respect. 26. In the three cases mentioned, the Court determined that: Taken literally, the wording of Article 48(1)(f) of the Convention stating that ‘the Commission shall place itself at the disposal of the parties concerned with a view to reaching a friendly settlement’ would seem to establish a compulsory procedure. Nevertheless, the Court believes that, if the phrase is interpreted within the context of the Convention, it is clear that the Commission should attempt such friendly settlement only when the circumstances of the controversy make that option suitable or necessary, at the Commission’s sole discretion. (Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 1, para. 44; Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 2, para. 49; and, Godínez Cruz Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 3, para. 47.)