8 the Commission and the representatives valued positively the State’s declarations and asked the Tribunal to, based on said “unconditional acquiescence”, consider as established the facts denounced and that it declare the violation of the alleged rights. 20. After the hearing, the State informed that it took the corresponding actions to transfer the investigation started regarding the facts of the present case to the courts of the regular jurisdiction. Similarly, it indicated that the Public Prosecutor’s Office requested a decline of its jurisdiction to the Judge Advocate, which was decided on in a favorable manner, ordering the transfer of the dossier to an ordinary court.11 21. As it has done in other cases,12 the Court considers that the acknowledgment of international responsibility made by the State in the proceedings before the Commission – which has been reiterated by the State before this instance- has full legal effects according to Articles 54 and 55 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court. In the case sub judice, the facts covered by said acknowledgment were clearly established in Report No. 71/04 and correspond to those presented in the complaint, which constitute the factual framework of these proceedings. Likewise, both the Agreement signed as well as the actions carried out by the State based on the same (supra paras. 12 and 15) prove that the acknowledgment made is consistent with the preservation of the rights to life, humane treatment, personal liberty, to a fair trial and judicial protection, as well as the general obligations of respect and guarantees established in the American Convention and in the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearances. Therefore, the State’s declarations must be considered by the Court as an acknowledgment of the facts presented and a total acquiescence of the claims of the Commission and the representatives in what refers to merits. 22. The Tribunal considers that the State’s attitude constitutes a positive contribution to the development of this process, to the good serving of the InterAmerican jurisdiction on human rights, to the supervision of the principles that inspire the American Convention and the behavior to which the States are compelled in this sense,13 by virtue of the commitments they assume as parties to the international human rights instruments. The Tribunal positively values the actions carried out by the State after the public hearing held and based on the requirements of this Court (supra para. 20). The Inter-American Court acknowledges that the acts carried out by the State in the present case form part of a policy of the National Cfr. order of the Military Court of the Fourth Infantry Brigade, Coyotenango, Department of Suchitepéquez, of June 10, 2008. (dossier on merits, Volume III, folio 704). In what is relevant it stated: “I. The decline of this military court to continue hearing the proceedings regarding the investigation on the plagiarism and kidnapping of María Tiu Tojín or María Tojín García and the minor Josefa Tiu or María Josefa Tojín, filed under number 44-90 (Military Court of Santa Cruz of El Quiché, currently inactive). II. The corresponding proceedings shall be forwarded to the Court of the First Instance for Criminal, Narcotics, and Environmental Offenses of the department of El Quiché”. 11 12 Cfr. Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 8 and 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 through 180; and Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008 Series C No. 177, paras. 23 through 25. 13 Cfr. Case of the Rochela Massacre, supra note 12, para. 29; Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 30, and Case of Kimel v. Argentina, supra note 12, para. 25.