3 facts have occurred that reveal, as regards their author, an intention to abate the proceeding and to settle the conflict (Article 54 of the Rules of Procedure). 9. In several cases processed in recent years, the States attributed with international responsibility, as a result of facts that violate the American Convention, have acknowledged these facts and the international responsibility arising from them. This attitude, which the Court has expressly assessed, must be emphasized to the extent that it reveals a constructive attitude and assumes, with objectivity and a helpful juridical attitude, the consequences that international law – and also domestic law – attribute to the unlawful conduct of the State agents or other persons who act with the agreement, sponsorship or tolerance of the State. 10. This laudable practice underscores the progress of democratic principles and the willingness to respect the rights of the people. The State that acquiesces or acknowledges the facts attributed to its agents, when that acquiescence or acknowledgement is justified, demarcates its ethical, juridical and political position from the deviations in which certain public servants incur. This timely demarcation has a high moral value and, frequently, has important preventive effects; it shows that the State does not accept the conduct of those who undermine its legal system – even when it must respond for it in international forums – and is not willing to fight legal battles that lack grounds and obstruct the true exercise of justice. 11. As I have indicated previously, the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court provide certain grounds for considering acts of acquiescence or settlement during the course of the proceeding. On this basis, and taking into account the principles that regulate international human rights proceedings (the nature of the corresponding procedural acts, in relation to their characteristics and the juridical purpose of their authors, the evidence gathered in the proceeding, and the explanations requested from the parties), the Court must establish the nature of those acts of settlement or acquiescence and the scope that may and should be attributed to them in the interests of legal certainty and the final nature of the proceeding itself. The final position of the parties, from the perspective of their obligations, rights and interests depends on how the Court defines the foregoing. By proceeding in this way, the Court develops and interprets its norms, in accordance with the authority inherent in its jurisdictional function and, thereby, exercises the attribution of facts and the authority to interpret and apply assigned to it by the international treaty (Articles 33.b) and 62(1), as well as Article 1 of the Statute of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights). 12. Thus, the Inter-American Court is called on to advance in the jurisprudential examination of different acts of settlement or acts which have the effect of clarifying facts that were initially disputed, based on the declarations or acknowledgements of the State, or which permit litigations to be concluded by means of decisions that constitute alternatives to the typical judgments of declaration or conviction. As I have mentioned, the American Convention itself, as well as the norms deriving from it – in this respect, the corresponding indications in the Rules of Procedures of the Inter-American Commission and Court – consider solutions emanating from friendly settlement, discontinuance and acquiescence, to which can be added, in the sense mentioned above and without forgetting their natural characteristics, acknowledgements of the facts and judicial confessions that have occurred while some cases were being processed. 13. There is still no uniformity in the statements made by States about acts of this type that are part of the international proceeding, or how they classify them. At