a law on historical memory; (j) [e]nactment of a law for investigation of responsibility by the full chain of command; (k) [r]evision of [d]omestic legislation [o]n [t]orture; (l) development of [p]olicies for preservation of files and sites of conscience, and (m) development of [p]olicies for education on memory (infra chapter VIII). 18. Finally, the State found it necessary, as indicated in its brief dated May 20, 2022, to inform the Court expressly that the “Convention article on Domestic Legal Effects was added to the set of rights to which the State acquiesces and recognizes its responsibility.” 19. The Commission welcomed the State’s expression of recognition in the public hearing and emphasized that this acquiescence covered all the matters of fact and rights raised by the Commission in its Report on the Merits and in the representatives’ pleadings and motions brief. It also asked the Court to deliver a judgment setting forth the facts, the violations committed, and the measures of reparation that the State should adopt. 20. The representatives welcomed the recognition of responsibility by Honduras. They saluted the “State’s moral courage […] and its attitude toward the victims in the public hearing” and reiterated that this “was the beginning of reparation and healing.” They also asked the Court to “clarify the facts, bearing in mind the testimonies that family members, witnesses and experts had brought before the public hearing.” They based their request on the fact that “this [would] be a landmark case in Honduras, not only because of the standing of Herminio Deras as a political and trade-union figure and journalist, but also because it [would] clearly reveal the presence of political motives behind his death and the interest of state policy in ensuring that the execution of a political opponent such as Herminio should remain unpunished.” They added that a judgment on the merits would be important to “strengthen the rule of law and the quest for justice and truth,” as well as “the political scope of the State’s recognition of responsibility.” B. Considerations of the Court 21. In keeping with Articles 62 and 64 of the Rules of Procedure, and in the exercise of its powers of international judicial protection of human rights, which is a matter of international public order, the Court must ensure that acts of acquiescence be acceptable for the purposes sought by the inter-American system. 10 B.1. The facts 22. The Court believes that the State’s assertions made at the public hearing on May 10 and 11, 2022, and its brief of “complete acquiescence” submitted to the Court at that time clearly reveal that Honduras has fully accepted the facts set forth by the Commission in its Report on the Merits and by the representatives in their pleadings and motions brief. 11 The Court therefore finds that the dispute on the full set of facts that make up the instant case has ended, to wit, facts involving: (a) the context of serious human rights violations under the national security doctrine in Honduras; (b) the death of Herminio Deras García; (c) facts concerning the family of Herminio Deras García, and (d) the criminal process undertaken over the death of Herminio Deras García. Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008. Series C No. 177, para. 24, and Case of Guevara Díaz v. Costa Rica. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 22, 2022. Series C No. 453, para. 16. 11 Facts presented by the representatives were not new, but instead, served to clarify and detail features in the corpus of facts contained in the Report on the Merits. 10