reached by the parties and of the acknowledgment of international responsibility made by the State therein. 19. The agreement includes as victims all the persons indicated as such in the Merits Report(supra para. 1), except for one: William Huacón (supra para. 10). The Court therefore deems it necessary to first conduct a general review of the agreement, and second, without prejudice to this review, also conduct a specific evaluation with respect Therefore, this Court will hereinafter issue: (a) general to William Huacón. considerations on the agreement reached and (b) considerations on William Huacón. C.1 General considerations on the friendly settlement agreement 20. The Court has found that the agreement provides a solution to the dispute in this case with respect to the facts, the human rights violations, the victims, and the determination of measures of reparation and the persons benefiting from them. It also includes an acknowledgment of the State's international responsibility with respect to all the facts and human rights violations identified by the Inter-American Commission in the Merits Report. It is the Court’s understanding that, due to how the State worded its acknowledgment of responsibility for the violations declared by the Inter-American Commission(supra para. 1), it also includes the legal grounds based on which the Commission concluded that the violations occurred. 21. The Court highlights the willingness of the victims, their representatives, and the State to reach a settlement to the dispute in this case. It also highlights the procedural moment at which they did so. This case differs from others in that the talks between the parties that resulted in the friendly settlement agreement and the State’s full acknowledgment of international responsibility took place at an early stage of the litigation before this Court, before the State’s deadline to submit its answering brief had expired. This enables the Court to resolve the dispute more quickly than if the international process had been pursued to its conclusion, while at the same time making it possible to secure justice and reparations for the victims. Thus, the dispute was settled without need for a public hearing; to receive testimony from experts and testimony or statements from the victims; and without the final written procedure stage being carried out. 10 22. The Court also highlights the importance of the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility, since it recognized all the facts presented by the Commission in its Merits Report, as well as the legal claims contained therein with respect to the violations of the victims' human rights. This Court finds that the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility makes a positive contribution to this process and the effectiveness of the principles that inspire the American Convention. 11 23. In view of the foregoing, in accordance with the terms of the agreement signed by the parties and the wording of the acknowledgment of international responsibility in to lead to a settlement of the dispute, the Court shall rule upon its admissibility and juridical effects at the appropriate procedural time.” Cf. In the same sense, Case of García Cruz and Sánchez Silvestre v. Mexico. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013. Series C No. 273, para. 19, and Case of the Miskito Divers (Lemoth Morris et al.) v. Honduras. Judgment of August 31, 2021. Series C No. 432, para. 23. 10 Cf. Case of the Caracazo v. Venezuela. Merits. Judgment of November 11, 1999. Series C No. 58, para. 43 and Case of Deras Garcia et al. v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 25, 2022. Series C No. 462, para. 26. 11 7