-6- III JURISDICTION 12. The Court has jurisdiction to hear this case pursuant to Article 62(3) of the Convention, since Chile has been a State Party to the American Convention since August 21, 1990, and accepted the Court’s contentious jurisdiction on the same date. IV ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE STATE Acknowledgement of responsibility by the State and observations of the Commission and the representative i. Regarding the facts 13. The State indicated that it “accepts the facts that have been considered proven by the […] Commission in Chapter IV of its Report. […] It emphasized that this acceptance of the factual framework of the case refers only to the judicial proceedings initiated by the alleged victims in this case in order to obtain civil reparations; therefore, any additional complaint referring to the criminal investigation of the events that occurred during the military dictatorship is outside the scope of this statement.” The State considered that, “in order to find fair solutions to the particular problems of the instant case, […] it is important to make a specific ruling on the acceptance of the following facts: the persons who were detained, abducted and/or disappeared and executed by agents of the State during the military dictatorship in 1973 and 1974, who are mentioned in the IACHR Merits Report, are part of the list of victims of human rights violations recognized by the State of Chile in the Report of the National Truth and Reconciliation Commission (Rettig Commission), of February 8, 1991. […] The family members of the victims recognized by the State and mentioned in said Report […] have not received financial reparations through the courts. However, most of them have received various administrative benefits and other bonuses under the provisions of laws enacted as part of the reparations policy implemented by the State after democracy was restored. 14. The Commission considered that the acknowledgement of responsibility made by the State is complete, inasmuch as it includes the entire factual framework established in the Merits Report. ii. Regarding the merits of the case 15. The State pointed out that “Chile acknowledges its full international responsibility for the violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection, enshrined in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in connection with the general obligation to respect the rights recognized therein and the duty to adopt provisions of domestic law, established in Articles 1(1) and 2, respectively, to the detriment of the victims indicated in the Merits Report.” In stating that it agrees with the Commission as to the subject matter of the instant case, the State recalled the case law of this Court on the rights of access to justice, truth and reparation; and the nonapplicability of statutes of limitations to crimes against humanity, among others. In considering that such standards “constitute the variables of analysis for its declaration of international responsibility,” the State indicated: “[…] its willingness to accept the conclusions and the related legal consequences contained in the Merits Report adopted by the IACHR. In particular, it accepts that it violated the right to judicial guarantees by not establishing the right of the alleged victims to obtain civil reparations. It also violated the right to judicial protection by not determining the right of the alleged victims to obtain civil reparations. In addition, it breached the right to judicial protection by not guaranteeing an effective remedy, in