19 8(1), 8(2), and 25 of the American Convention in conjunction with Article 1(1) therein, regarding the imposition of the punishment of two years imprisonment ordered against Jesús Vélez by means of Resolution N° 7306[,] of December 6, 2002.” The State mentioned that “the issuance of Resolution N° 7306[,] despite being a formal administrative act, had to take into account and provide the procedural guarantees inherent in criminal procedures, insofar as its application affected the fundamental right to liberty. There is no record in the instant case that such obligation has been adequately complied with at the stage of substantiation of the administrative proceeding in which it was determined the imposition of such punishment. […T]he sentence of imprisonment was decided without affording the victim the possibility of being heard […]. Such failure constitutes a violation of the guarantees contemplated in Article 8(2).” Therefore, the State “acknowledge[d] responsibility for the violation of Article 8(1) and 8(2) subsection (b), (c), (d), and (f) in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the American Convention, given that no written and detailed formal notice was served on the accused of the charges brought against him; Mr. Vélez was not provided time or the adequate means for the preparation of his defense; Mr. Vélez was not assisted by counsel nor was he allowed to exercise his right to defense during the substantiation of the administrative proceeding that resulted in the deprivation of his liberty.” 61. The Commission valued the acknowledgment made by the State, but it noted that “some aspects of the language used [...] are ambiguous and thereby hinder an unequivocal determination of the scope of the acknowledgment of responsibility”; therefore, it requested the Tribunal to provide a “detailed description of the facts and [of] the [alleged] human rights violations committed, in view of the effect of reparation of [this judgment] in favor of the [alleged] victim, as well as of its contribution to the non-repetition of similar facts.” 62. The representatives sustained that “the acknowledgment of responsibility made by the Panamanian State is highly confusing and ambiguous,” given that it only indicates the Articles the State considers to be violated, without clearly establishing which were the facts that gave rise to such violations or making reference to reasons different than the ones alleged by the Commission and the representatives. Furthermore, they emphasized certain contradictions that emerged from the State’s arguments. As a result, they indicated that the lack of clarity of the State's declarations impedes the establishment of the true scope of the acknowledgment of responsibility made, for which they requested the Court to “examine all the facts, claims, and requests in dispute.” 63. According to Articles 56(2) and 58 of the Rules of Procedure,42 and in exercise of the power to provide international judicial protection of the human rights, a matter of international public order that goes beyond the intent of the parties, the Court must ensure that acts of acquiescence are acceptable for the purposes of the InterAmerican system. Consequently, the Court does not limit itself to merely confirming, recording, or taking note of the acknowledgement made by the State, or verifying the formal conditions of such actions, but it must weigh them against the nature and seriousness of the alleged violations, the requirements and interests of justice, the 42 In its pertinent part, articles 56.2 and 58 of the Court's Rules of Procedure establish that: Article 56. Discontinuance of a case. […] 2. If the respondent informs the Court of its acquiescence to the claims of the party that has brought the case as well as to the claims of the alleged victims or their representatives, the Court, after hearing the opinions of the other parties to the case, shall decide whether such acquiescence and its juridical effects are acceptable. In that event, the Court shall determine the appropriate reparations and indemnities. Article 58. Continuance of a case. The Court may, notwithstanding the existence of the conditions indicated in the preceding paragraphs, and bearing in mind its responsibility to protect human rights, decide to continue the consideration of a case.