6 20. Regarding the reparations requested, the State indicated that “it is a principle of international law that any violation of an international obligation that has caused damage, gives rise to an obligation to repair this damage satisfactorily”; accordingly, it agreed “to make pecuniary and non-pecuniary reparations to the individuals who, based on the corresponding judgment, are declared to have a right to them.” The State made some observations on establishing pecuniary damages for loss of income, but added that it “would submit to whatever the Court orders in the corresponding judgment.” 21. The Inter-American Commission and the representatives assessed the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility positively. The Commission, in particular, indicated that the State’s acknowledgement was “an act that paved the way towards reparation and implementation of the efforts that must be made to ensure justice in this case, and to guarantee that this type of violation is never repeated.” 22. The representatives indicated that the immediate consequence of the State’s partial acquiescence was that the Court “should consider that the facts that gave rise to the said [...] violations have been accepted [...] and that [it should declare] that the dispute has ceased in relation to the violation of these rights.” They stated that “the dispute persists concerning the facts on which the violations of the rights to life, personal integrity and freedom of association are based, as well as on the existence of a context of violence and impunity that affects, in particular, defenders of the environment” in Honduras. 23. Under Articles 53(2) and 55 of the Rules of Procedure,7 and in function of its authority to exercise the international judicial protection of human rights, the Court may determine whether an acknowledgement of international responsibility made by a defendant State offers sufficient grounds, in the terms of the American Convention, to continue examining the Merits and determining reparations and costs.8 24. Since the proceedings before this Court relate to the protection of human rights, a matter of international public order that goes beyond the intent of the parties, the Court must ensure that acts of acquiescence are acceptable for the purposes of the InterAmerican system. To this end, the Court does not limit itself to merely verifying the formal conditions of the said acts, but relates them to the nature and gravity of the alleged violations, the requirements and interests of justice, the particular circumstances of each case, and the attitude and position of the parties.9 7 Article 53. Discontinuance of a Case […] 2. If the respondent informs the Court of its acquiescence to the claims of the party that has brought the case as well as the to claims of the representatives of the alleged victims, his next of kin or representatives, the Court, after hearing the opinions of the other parties to the case, shall decide whether such acquiescence and its juridical effects are acceptable. In that event, the Court shall determine the appropriate reparations and indemnities. Article 55. Continuation of a Case The Court, may notwithstanding the existence of the conditions indicated in the preceding paragraphs, and bearing in mind its responsibility to protect human rights, decide to continue the consideration of a case. 8 Cf. Case of Myrna Chang V. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 105; Case of Ticona-Estrada et al. V. Bolivia. Merits Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 20; and Case of Valle-Jaramillo et al. V. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 28. 9 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack-Chang. Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 8, 106 to 108; Case of Kimel V. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008, Series C No. 177, para. 24, and Case of Ticona-Estrada et al. Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 8, para. 21.