-1024. First, in relation the facts, the Court notes that there is agreement between the State (supra paras. 15 and 16) and the Commission19 regarding the factual framework and the subject matter of the case. Consequently, with respect to the facts of the case, the Court considers that the dispute has ceased; therefore, there is no need to make its own determination of the facts of the case. 25. Secondly, regarding the merits, the State acknowledged its international responsibility in relation to the conclusions of the Commission’s Report (supra paras. 15 and 16), a fact that was viewed positively by the Commission and by the representative. This Court considers that the State’s acknowledgement constitutes an acceptance of the Commission’s legal claims regarding the violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection, to the detriment of the victims indicated in the Merits Report. The Court appreciates the State’s acknowledgement of international responsibility, which constitutes a valuable contribution to the advancement of this process and to the validity of the principles that inspire the Convention, as well as, in part, to the victims’ need for reparation.20 Therefore, as it has in other cases,21 the Court considers that this act produces full legal effects and that the dispute on the merits of the case has ceased. 26. Third, in relation to reparations, the Court notes that in this case the representative of the alleged victims did not submit his brief with pleadings, motions and evidence within the statutory period established for that purpose, for which reason it was declared inadmissible (supra para. 6). 27. In general terms, procedural inactivity results in the preclusion of the procedural opportunity to assert, within the period provided for this purpose, the corresponding rights. This may ultimately be prejudicial to the relevant party, when it voluntarily decides not to fully exercise its right of defense in full, or to carry out the procedural actions that are in its best interest, in accordance with the maxim audi alteram partem.22 Nevertheless, in accordance with the provisions of the Court’s Rules of Procedure23 and its case law, a party that appears belatedly in the proceeding is allowed to participate in subsequent procedural actions, taking into account the stages that would have expired in accordance with the procedural moment.24 In this regard, it has already been established that closing arguments essentially serve to systematize de facto and de jure arguments presented in a timely manner, and therefore these cannot properly replace the failure to submit the initial brief, nor are they a stage for presenting additional facts, evidence or requests, since they cannot be answered by the other parties.25 In its Report, the Commission made it clear that “the complaint was not about the criminal investigation of the acts that took place during the military dictatorship, but rather about ‘the refusal of the Chilean courts to grant compensation’ to the [alleged] victims in the instant case, especially after the Rettig Commission had recognized the State’s liability for the serious violations of the human rights of family members [ …] and that in the case at hand ‘the allegations refer only to the judgments handed down by the Chilean courts between 1999 and 2003.’ Therefore] the facts […] deal only with judicial proceedings brought by the alleged victims in this case for the purpose of obtaining reparation and the responses they received.” 19 Cf. Case of Benavides Cevallos v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 19, 1998. Series C No. 38, para. 57; Case of Poblete Vilches et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 349, para. 25; and Case López Soto et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 362, para. 34. 20 Cf. Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 7, 2006. Series C No. 144, paras. 176 to 180; Case of Poblete Vilches et al. v. Chile, para. 25; and Case of López Soto et al. v. Venezuela, para. 30. 21 Cf., See also, Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Jurisdiction. Judgment of September 24, 1999. Series C No. 55, para. 60; and Case of San Miguel Sosa et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 8, 2018. Series C No. 348, para. 16. 22 Article 29(2) of the Rules of Procedure, which regulates the “Default procedure,” indicates that “When […] the victims, alleged victims, or their representatives, the respondent State or, if applicable, the petitioning State, enter a case at a later stage in the proceedings, they shall participate in the proceedings at that stage.” 23 Cf. Case of Nadege Dorzema et al. v. Dominican Republic. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 24, 2012. Series C No. 251, para. 19; and Case of San Miguel Sosa et al. v. Venezuela, para. 16. 24 Cf. Case of Pollo Rivera v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 21, 2016. Series C No. 319, para. 23; and Case of San Miguel Sosa et al. v. Venezuela, para. 18. 25