-9its acknowledgement of responsibility.14 The representative stated that “the acknowledgement of responsibility expressed by the State of Chile – which could be seen as a positive step that would facilitate the settlement of this dispute, under Articles 62 and 63 of its Rules of Procedure, elicits [the] suggestion [to ask the Court to formulate] a proposal to the parties [to] reach a friendly settlement agreement.” In such, case he requested that several claims for reparation be considered.15 The representative reiterated this point in his final arguments, in which he also made further requests for reparations.16 Considerations of the Court 23. In accordance with Articles 62 and 64 of the Rules of Procedure,17 and in exercise of its powers of international judicial protection of human rights, a matter of international public order, it is incumbent upon this Court to ensure that acts of acknowledgement of responsibility are acceptable for the purposes sought by the inter-American system. In doing so, the Court must not only verify the formal conditions of said acts, but also examine them in relation to the nature and seriousness of the alleged violations, the requirements and interests of justice, the specific circumstances surrounding a particular case, and the attitude and position of the parties, in such a way that it can determine, as far as possible and in exercise of its jurisdiction, the judicial truth of what happened.18 The representative forwarded copies of three recent letters from the State Defense Council in which the latter responded to claims filed by him in cases pending before the domestic courts. 14 15 The representative made the following requests in his brief of observations on the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility: 1) The State should issue an express statement, in the specific case, that the extinctive prescription is not applicable to civil actions arising from crimes under international law -particularly war crimes and crimes against humanity, such as those committed in Chile in the past- which are aimed at repairing the damage caused to the petitioners and relatives of the victims of these crimes. 2) The State, through the Judiciary or any other body it may designate, could define a legal mechanism that would allow for the repeal or annulment of the judicial rulings denounced, but only with regard to the declaration of the statute of limitations of the civil action or the civil part thereof, in the case of crimes under international law, or define some legal, administrative or other type of remedy that would provide for the corresponding reparation and compensation, ensuring that it is a quick, effective and efficient mechanism. 3) In relation to the amount of the reparation, the criteria for determining it are those contained in the jurisprudence of the Court; in the Principles for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights through Action to Combat Impunity (United Nations, 2005); in previous solutions adopted (as in the case of Carmelo Soria Espinoza before the Commission, in which the State undertook in a compliance agreement to pay the sum of one million five hundred thousand dollars to his family as compensation, or in the case of Orlando Letelier and Ronni Moffit, in which the "Bryan" Commission of the United States ordered, inter alia, the payment of ex gratia compensation for moral damages of US$ 160,000.00 in favor of the widow and US$ 80.000,00 for each of the four children); as well as the standards currently applicable by the Chilean judiciary. 4) As a measure of non-repetition that would benefit other petitioners who are affected by a situation of violation of human rights identical to that in the present case, the creation of an effective mechanism to safeguard the right to judicial protection and judicial guarantees in these cases and the right to reparation for victims of crimes under international law. In addition, the representative pointed out that there are several cases before the Inter-American Commission, where he acts on behalf of other persons, in which the subject matter of the cases coincides with that raised in the present case and in which the State should adopt a criterion of acknowledgement of responsibility identical to that expressed in the present case. Therefore, it would be appropriate to urge the State to express the same recognition in these cases and thus lay the groundwork for reaching an amicable settlement agreement and prevent these victims from being subjected to further delays that harm or hinder the realization of their rights. In addition to what was indicated in the previous note, in his final written arguments the representative asked the Court to order the State, as measures of non-repetition, “to offer a public apology to the petitioning parties, including an acknowledgment of the facts and acceptance of its responsibility,” as well as “the inclusion of a precise account of the violations that occurred in the teaching of international human rights standards and international humanitarian law [and], in educational materials at all levels, in particular, in the Judicial Academy for judges of the Republic of Chile”. 16 Articles 62 and 64 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court establish the following: “Article 62. Acquiescence: 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 in the brief submitted by the alleged victims or their representatives, the Court shall decide, having heard the opinions of all those participating in the proceedings and at the appropriate procedural moment, whether to accept that acquiescence, and shall rule upon its juridical effects.” “Article 64. Continuation of a case: Bearing in mind its responsibility to protect human rights, the Court may decide to continue the consideration of a case notwithstanding the existence of the conditions indicated in the preceding Articles.” 17 Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008. Series C No. 177, para. 24; and Case of Ramírez Escobar et al. v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 9, 2018. Series C No. 351, para. 27. 18