American Convention, for which the State had accepted international responsibility.” 7 In response to this requirement, the State did not specify the facts upon which its partial acknowledgment of responsibility was based, and only submitted to this Court the information provided by the state agents during the public hearing. B. Considerations of the Court 17. In accordance with Articles 62 and 64 of the Rules of Procedure 8, and in exercise of its international responsibility to protect human rights - a matter that transcends the will of the parties - the Court must ensure that acts of acquiescence are acceptable for the purposes of the inter-American system. In doing so, the Court must not only verify the formal conditions of said acts, but also examine them in relation to the nature and seriousness of the alleged violations, the requirements and interests of justice, the particular circumstances surrounding a particular case and the attitude and position of the parties 9, in order to determine, as far as possible and in the exercise of its jurisdiction, the truth of the matter. 10 18. In this case, the Court considers that the State’s partial acceptance of the facts and its acknowledgement of some claims of law are a positive contribution to the conduct of these proceedings, to the fulfillment of the principles underlying the American Convention, 11 and that they partially satisfy the need to provide reparation to victims of human rights violations. 12 The Court considers, as it has in other cases, 13 that the State’s acknowledgement has full legal effects under Articles 62 and 64 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, and high symbolic value in preventing the repetition of similar facts. 19. In this regard, the Court emphasizes that the State has accepted certain facts upon acknowledging its responsibility in relation to Articles 8(1), 8(2), 9, 24 and 25 of the American Convention. Nevertheless, the facts to which the State refers do not encompass the entire factual framework outlined by the Commission and the representatives in their briefs; therefore, a dispute remains concerning the facts which the Court must resolve. 7 Note of the Secretariat of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 13, 2013 (Merits file, volume IV, page 1481). 8 Articles 62 and 64 of the Rules of the Court establish: Article 62. Acquiescence- If the respondent informs the Court of its acceptance of the facts or its total or partial acquiescence to the claims stated in the presentation of the case or the brief submitted by the alleged victims or their representatives, the Court shall decide, having heard the opinions of all those participating in the proceedings and at the appropriate procedural moment, whether to accept that acquiescence, and shall rule upon its juridical effects. Article 64. Continuation of a Case- Bearing in mind its responsibility to protect human rights, the Court may decide to continue the consideration of a case notwithstanding the existence of the conditions indicated in the preceding Articles. 9 Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008. Series C No. 177, para. 24, and Case of García and Family v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2012 Series C No. 258, para. 16. 10 Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina, para. 24, and Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. ("Diario Militar") v. Guatemala. Merits Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2012 Series C No. 253, para. 20. 11 Cf. Case of El Caracazo v. Venezuela. Merits. Judgment of November 11, 1999. Series C No. 58, para. 43, and Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. ("Diario Militar") v. Guatemala, para. 28. 12 Cf. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213 para. 18, and Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. ("Diario Militar") v. Guatemala, para. 28. 13 Cf. inter alia, Case of Kimel v. Argentina, paras. 23 to 25, and Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. ("Diario Militar") V. Guatemala, para. 28. 8