American Convention. 16 Furthermore, the Court considers, as it has in other cases, 17 that this acknowledgement has full legal effects pursuant to Articles 62 and 64 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure mentioned above, and has considerable symbolic value to ensure the non-repetition of similar events. 23. The Court also assesses positively the reparations agreement reached by the parties, which reflects the State’s willingness to redress the harm caused to the victims as a result of the violations in this case. The Court has established that the agreements reached by the parties contribute to achieving the objectives of the inter-American system for the protection of human rights, especially in order to identify just solutions to the specific and structural problems of a case. 18 The Court endorses the measures of reparation described in the agreement signed by the State and the victims’ representatives, in the terms set forth in this Judgment, because they contribute to achieving the object and purpose of the American Convention. Nevertheless, the Court will analyze these measures in Chapter IX, in order to determine their scope and method of implementation. 24. Lastly, bearing in mind the seriousness of the facts and the alleged violations, and taking into account the powers vested in this Court as an international organ for the protection of human rights, the Court will proceed to make an extensive and detailed determination of the events that occurred, because this contributes to making reparation to the victims, to avoiding the repetition of similar acts and, in brief, to achieving the purposes of the inter-American jurisdiction on human rights. 19 Furthermore, the Court will include the corresponding chapters to analyze and to clarify, as necessary, the scope of the violations alleged by the Commission and the representatives. IV COMPETENCE 25. The Inter-American Court is competent to hear this case pursuant to Article 62(3) of the American Convention, because Guatemala has been a State Party to the American Convention since May 25, 1978, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on March 9, 1987. In addition, Guatemala ratified the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons on February 25, 2000. 26. The Court recalls that, in general, it has temporal competence as of the date of ratification of the respective instruments and the acceptance of its contentious jurisdiction, in the terms in which the said ratifications and acceptances were made. 20 However, it observes that, in the instant case, the State has acknowledged its international responsibility for the alleged violation of freedom of thought and expression, and freedom of association as a reason for the forced disappearance of Edgar Fernando García (supra para. 16 Cf. Case of El Caracazo v. Venezuela. Merits. Judgment of November 11, 1999. Series C No. 58, para. 43, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, supra, para. 28. 17 Cf. inter alia, Case of Torres Millacura et al. v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 26, 2011. Series C No. 229, para. 37, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 3, 2012. Series C No. 248, para. 21. 18 Cf. Case of Pacheco Teruel et al. v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 27, 2012. Series C No. 241, para. 19. 19 Cf. Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2008. Series C No. 190, para. 26, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, supra, para. 27. 20 Cf. Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2010. Series C No. 217, para. 20. 11