framework defined in the Merits Report, which makes reference to the verification of different “holes” in the boat in which the Casierra Quiñonez brothers and their companions were onboard, which were allegedly caused by projectile impacts from firearms, resulting from the actions of military personnel on the day of the events.9 Consequently, the preliminary objection raised is dismissed. V PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS A. Alleged acknowledgment of international responsibility by the State A.1. Arguments of the Parties 25. The representatives indicated that the State has recognized on several occasions its "full responsibility" for the violation of the rights of the alleged victims, since during the proceedings before the Commission, on at least three occasions, between December 2019 and June 2020, it reported on its intention to comply with the recommendations contained in the Merits Report. Similarly, by including the acts committed against the alleged victims, they argued that the Truth Commission report constitutes "a clear acceptance of responsibility," which "continued to be strengthened through the adoption of the Law for reparation of victims and judicialization [sic].” They requested that the principle of estoppel be applied to the instant case. 26. The State indicated that the Truth Commission in Ecuador, which was created in 2007, had the purpose of “investigating and clarifying […] the events […] that violated human rights between 1984 and 1988 and other periods.” As a result, the "Law for the reparation of victims and the prosecution of serious human rights violations and crimes against humanity that occurred in Ecuador between October 4, 1983 and December 31, 2008," enacted in 2013, included the acknowledgment of the State's responsibility with specific effects on the “institutionality of the national reparation mechanism,” which is not equivalent to an acknowledgment of international responsibility for the events. 27. It indicated that the representatives’ argument is wrong insofar as they intend that "the State's position be identified as a kind of estoppel […].” Likewise, the reports presented during the proceedings before the Commission “do not constitute anything other than the expression of the State's will to comply with its international obligations.” 28. The Commission did not comment on this. A.2. Considerations of the Court 29. The Court recalls that Article 62 of its Rules of Procedure regulates the “acceptance of the facts or its total or partial acquiescence” made before the Court.10 The foregoing does not Cf. IACHR. Report No. 14/19. Case No. 12,302. Merits. Casierra brothers and family. Ecuador. February 12, 2019, paras. 34 and 39: 34. 34. On December 13, 1999, a visual inspection was conducted in which it was concluded that: (i) the vessel used by the Ecuadorian Navy had "two holes in the upper part of the bow and another in the lower part of the kennel hatch next to the seat;” (ii) in the boat that the Casierra brothers were on “one could see a large number of holes caused by firearms projectiles”[…]. 39. On February 10, 2000, the Esmeraldas Fifth Lower Criminal Court conducted an examination in which it found that the launch used by the Casierra brothers had 49 holes in it. […]. 10 Article 62 of the Court's Rules of Procedure: 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 9 8