13. In the agreement, the parties committed to inform the Court of its contents, and "the beneficiaries" stated that they were desisting from pursuing the case further before the Court. Both parties said they were asking the Court to approve the agreement and to “follow up on compliance with it, within the framework of its authority to supervise judgments" and to “close the file as corresponds" when the agreement has reached “full compliance.” They freely and voluntarily expressed their agreement and satisfaction with the terms of the clauses of the agreement, expressly stating that they thereby bring to a close any dispute in which they may attempt, in the present or in the future, to hold the Ecuadorian State responsible for the facts of this case. 14. In subparagraph 4(3)(2) of the agreement, entitled "Acceptance of international responsibility by the Ecuadorian State," the latter acknowledged its international responsibility in the instant case with respect to the facts and their legal consequences, as follows: [T]he Ecuadorian State acknowledges its international responsibility for violating the rights to life, personal integrity, judicial guarantees and judicial protection set forth in articles 4(1), 5(1), 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with articles 1(1) and 2 of the aforementioned body of law, pursuant to the terms of the [...] Report [on the Merits]. 15. In the document, the parties also agreed that Ecuador must comply with a series of measures to provide reparations for the human rights violations perpetrated to the detriment of Walter Gonzalo Huacón Baidal, Mercedes Eugenia Salazar Cueva and their families. Likewise, they agreed upon the “deadline" and "form of payment" for these measures of reparation. The agreement identifies the beneficiaries. 16. In addition to the foregoing, the agreement provides a summary of the facts indicated by the Commission in the Merits Report; an account of the process before the inter-American human rights system; a contextualization and description of the dialogue process between the Ecuadorian State and the victims; and a description of the legal grounds for the friendly settlement, based on the provisions of the inter-American corpus iuris, the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador, and the relevant provisions of domestic law. B) Commission’s comments 17. In its comments (supra para. 9), the Commission “welcome[d] the fact that the parties have reached a friendly settlement agreement" and noted "that the measures of reparation agreed to by the parties incorporate the different components of comprehensive reparation.” It “therefore expressed [its] satisfaction with the agreement signed by the parties." C) Considerations of the Court 18. Pursuant to Article 63 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, 9 the Court must determine the admissibility and juridical effects of the friendly settlement agreement 9 Article 63, headed “Friendly settlement,” reads as follows: “When the Commission; the victims or alleged victims, or their representatives; the respondent State; or, if applicable, the petitioning State in a case before the Court inform it of the existence of a friendly settlement, compromise, or any other occurrence likely 6