-1128. Therefore, in application of Article 29(2) of the Rules of Procedure, and by virtue of the adversarial and equality of arms principles, the Court will not take into account the requests for reparations submitted by the representative in his observations on the State’s acknowledgement and final arguments, because they were not presented at the appropriate procedural moment, unless they are related to matters raised by the Commission.26 29. On the other hand, as regards the “suggestion” made by the representative, and reiterated in his closing arguments, that this Court should propose to the parties a friendly settlement agreement, the Court recalls that, pursuant to Article 63 of the Rules of Procedure,27 it is possible that the parties may reach friendly settlement agreements during the processing of a case before this Court, in which case they should inform the Court so that it may assess their appropriateness and legal effects.28 However, at the time of issuing this judgment, the parties have not communicated any such agreement. 30. Finally, it is clear that, as a consequence of its acquiescence, the State has acknowledged its obligation to compensate the victims in the instant case. However, the Court notes that a dispute remains as to the appropriate measures of reparation for such purpose, and therefore it is necessary to open a chapter on this matter. 31. In order to ensure a clearer understanding of the State’s international responsibility in the instant case, in the following chapters the Court deems it appropriate to: review the facts contained in the Merits Report, which were accepted in their entirety by the State; clarify some aspects of the human rights violations acknowledged by the State; and, finally, resolve the remaining dispute regarding the reparations. V FACTS A.1 System of reparations of the Chilean State 32. Following the end of the military dictatorship, on April 25, 1990, the then President Patricio Aylwin Azocar issued Supreme Decree No. 355 which created the Rettig Commission, and declared that “the moral conscience of the Nation demands that the truth about the serious human rights violations committed in the country between September 11, 1973, and March 11, 1990, be brought to light.” The tasks of the Rettig Commission were: “a) To establish the most complete picture possible of those grave events, their background and circumstances; b) To gather evidence that will help to identify the victims and determine their fate or whereabouts; c) To recommend such measures of reparation and restoration as it considers to be just; and d) To recommend the legal and administrative measures which, in the view of the Commission, should be adopted to prevent or impede the acts referred to herein.”29 33. Supreme Decree No. 355 defined serious violations as the “situations of those persons who disappeared after arrest, who were executed or who were tortured to death, in which the moral responsibility of the State is compromised as a result of actions by its agents or persons in its 26 Cf. Case of Pollo Rivera et al. v. Peru, paras. 24 and 25; and Case of San Miguel Sosa et al. v. Venezuela, para. 24. Article 63 of the Rules of Procedure establishes that “[w]hen the Commission, the […] alleged victims or their representatives [or] the State […], in a case before the Court inform it of the existence of a friendly settlement, compromise or any other occurrence likely to lead to a settlement of the dispute, the Court shall rule upon its admissibility and juridical effects at the appropriate procedural moment.” 27 Cf. Case of Benavides Cevallos v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 19, 1998. Series C No. 38, paras. 55 and 57; and Case of Gómez Murillo et al. v. Costa Rica. Judgment of November 29, 2016. Series C No. 326, paras. 15 and 16. See also Case of Escaleras Mejía et al. v. Honduras, paras. 15 and 16. 28 29 Supreme Decree No. 355 of April 25, 1990. In: Report of the Rettig Commission, Volume I, pages XI to XIV.