B.4. Analysis of the recognition of responsibility 25. The State’s recognition is an acquiescence to all the facts, alleged violations, and most of the reparations requested by the Inter-American Commission in its Report on the Merits and by the representatives in their pleadings and motions brief. 26. This Court takes a very positive view of the broad acceptance of responsibility offered by Honduras and the good will and commitment the State expressed for fully redressing the victims for violations in the instant case. The Court finds that the recognition of international responsibility makes a positive and essential contribution to the development of these proceedings and the observance of the principles that inspire the Convention, as well as to the victims’ needs for reparation. 12 The State’s acquiescence has full legal effects, pursuant to articles 62 and 64 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, and holds considerable symbolic value for preventing the recurrence of similar incidents, especially in view of the setting in which they took place. Owing to the comprehensive acknowledgment made by the State, the Court considers that the legal dispute in this case has ceased with regard to the facts, the law, and the need to adopt measures of reparation. 27. Taking into account the seriousness of the facts and violations acknowledged by the State and the petition of the representatives and the Commission, the Court is compelled to deliver a judgment that establishes the facts of the case, based on evidence produced during the proceedings before this Court and the State’s acceptance thereof, as this will contribute to making redress to the victims and thus prevent similar events from occurring in the future and, in short, to meeting the objectives of the inter-American human rights jurisdiction. 13 28. The Court does not find it appropriate at this time to enter into a detailed discussion of the human rights violations that took place in injury of Deras García and his family, because these facts were expressly acknowledged by the State in its broad recognition of international responsibility, and because the claims concerning the particular rights argued and acknowledged in the instant case have already been extensively developed in the case law of the Inter-American Court. However, in view of the petition by the representatives and the Commission, and because this judgment itself can serve as a form of reparation, the Court does find it necessary to expound on its conclusions regarding the violations that have been alleged and acknowledged, in light of the facts of the case. 29. The Court also sees the need to offer its opinion on each of the measures of reparation, based on the State’s acceptance of responsibility. 30. Finally, the Court would recall that the State raised two preliminary objections in its answering brief. 14 In view of the scope of the State’s recognition of responsibility, however, it is the view of the Court that Honduras has withdrawn these objections, and therefore it will not rule on them. 12 Cf. Case of Benavides Cevallos v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 19, 1998. Series C No. 38, para. 57, and Case of Guevara Díaz v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 22. 13 Cf. Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2008. Series C No. 190, para. 26, and Case of Digna Ochoa et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2021. Series C No. 447, para. 25. 14 The two preliminary objections lodged by the State were: (a) legal review of [R]eport on [M]erits No. 158/19 concerning submission of the case to the contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court,” and (b) “partial lack of jurisdiction due to ratione temporis.”