reparation” of the victims, for which it created the administrative Reparations Program.16 Therefore, the acknowledgment of “strict responsibility” provided for in article 2 of the Law for the Reparation of Victims aims that the administrative reparations program does not have to demonstrate state responsibility, but directly agree on the pertinent reparations. 17 34. Consequently, from the general content of the final report by the Truth Commission and the text of article 2 of the Law for the Reparation of Victims from 2013, there is no acknowledgment of the international responsibility of the State with the scope provided for in article 62 of the Court's Rules of Procedure. Moreover, for the Court, the content of said final report did not correspond to the objective of granting it the nature of an acknowledgment of international responsibility. Notwithstanding, said report will be taken into account when it comes to including the facts that determine the subject matter of this case. 35. Meanwhile, as to the actions of the State during the proceedings before the Commission, the Court recalls that the Inter-American System is designed such that, after issuing the Merits Report, the State has the opportunity to comply with the recommendations made before the case be submitted to the Court's jurisdiction 18. Said opportunity, like friendly settlement agreements, contributes to the goals of the Inter-American Human Rights System, especially as to finding fair solutions to the particular and structural problems of a case. 19 Furthermore, the measures aimed at implementing the Commission's recommendations must be understood as good faith compliance with the purposes of the American Convention and not as an acknowledgment of the jurisdiction or the admissibility of the case before the Court, nor an acknowledgment or acquiescence to the substantive violations alleged. Construing otherwise would imply discouraging the States from participating in the dispute resolution processes prior to appearing before this Court.20 36. A review of the specific actions identified by the representatives, which were carried out by the State after the Commission notified the Merits Report,21 does not show a clear intention of Ecuador to acquiesce to the claims of the Commission and the petitioning party. Instead, the State asked the Commission to suspend the “deadline for submitting the case to the Court,” as set out in its last two communications. In other words, the State sought to prevent the case from ultimately being submitted to this Court's jurisdiction, with the intention that, within the framework of Articles 50 and 51 of the Convention, the Commission consider the matter to be resolved through domestic measures adopted. Article 4, 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, published on December 13, 2013. Cf. Answer brief (merits file, volume IV, folios 911 and 912). 17 Cf. Case of Vásquez Durand et al. v. Ecuador, supra, para. 48. 18 Article 50.3 of the American Convention provides that “[i]n transmitting the report, the Commission may make such proposals and recommendations as it sees fit.” In line with this, article 51 provides: 1. If, within a period of three months from the date of the transmittal of the report […] the matter has not either been settled or submitted […] to the Court […] the Commission may, by the vote of an absolute majority of its members, set forth its opinion and conclusions concerning the question submitted for its consideration. 2. The Commission shall make pertinent recommendations and shall prescribe a period within which the State is to take the measures that are incumbent upon it to remedy the situation examined. 3. When the prescribed period has expired, the Commission shall decide by the vote of an absolute majority of its members whether the state has taken adequate measures and whether to publish its report. 19 Cf. Case of Pacheco Teruel et al. v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 27, 2012. Series C No. 241, para. 18 and 19, and Case of Flor Freire v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2016. Series C No. 315, para. 43. 20 Cf. Case of Argüelles et al. vs. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 288, para. 56, and Case of Flor Freire v. Ecuador, supra, para. 43. 21 Cf. Briefs of December 3, 2019, March 4, 2020, and June 4, 2020. On each occasion, the State presented the corresponding “compliance report” (evidence file, volume II, file of proceedings before the Commission, folios 1716 to 1719, 2077 to 2082, and 2089 to 2095). 16 10