the violations alleged." However, she argued that the recognition of responsibility is partial, "as it does not recognize that the violations of the Convention alleged […] are not exceptional and continue to this day." She specifically underscored that the State fails to recognize that domestic law empowers the Supreme Court of the Nation to not provide grounds for its judgments and permits refusal to analyze human rights violations based on mere formalities. She therefore reiterated her request for measures of nonpecuniary reparations. B. Considerations of the Court 18. Pursuant to Articles 62 and 64 of the Rules of Procedure, and in exercise of its authority in relation to the international protection of human rights, a matter of international law, the Court must ensure that acts of recognition of responsibility are acceptable for the purposes pursued by the inter-American system.8 The Court will now proceed to analyze the situation in this specific case. B.1. Regarding the facts 19. Argentina recognized its international responsibility for all the human rights violations indicated by the Commission (infra, para. 20). It is the Court’s understanding that, by accepting all the human rights violations described in the Report on the Merits, the State has also recognized all the facts set forth in the report establishing these violations. B.2. Regarding the legal claims 20. This Court finds that the State’s recognition constitutes acceptance of the Commission’s legal claims as to the violation of the right to equal protection, the right to adequate grounding of judicial decisions, and the right to judicial protection, recognized in articles 24, 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, in relation to articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention. It is therefore concluded that there are no disputes as to the merits. B.3. Regarding the reparations 21. Lastly, with regard to reparations, the State explicitly accepted the pecuniary reparations requested by the Commission and by the representative. However, it argued there was no reason to order any of the measures of non-repetition requested. Therefore, the only remaining dispute is over the exceptional nature of Mr. Almeida's case and whether there is a need to take general measures to ensure compliance with the obligations derived from Article 2 of the Convention in response to the observations made by the representative on the State’s recognition of responsibility. Thus, the Court will analyze the measures requested in the section of this judgment on reparations. B.4. Assessment of the acknowledgement of responsibility 22. The Court finds that the total acknowledgement of international responsibility makes a positive contribution to the development of these proceedings and the observance of the principles that inspire the Convention, as well as to the victims’ needs for reparation.9 The acknowledgement made by the State has full legal effects pursuant to above-mentioned articles 62 and 64 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, and has significant symbolic value to ensure that similar facts are not Cf. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment dated May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 17, and Case of Fernández Prieto and Tumbeiro v. Argentina. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of September 1, 2020. Series C No. 411, para. 19. 8 Cf. Case of Benavides Cevallos v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 19, 1998. Series C No. 38, para. 57, and Case of Fernández Prieto and Tumbeiro v. Argentina, supra, para. 20. 9 6