7 28. As far as the person to whom the apology is addressed is concerned, we should consider the meaning of the forgiveness sought and granted: does it provide absolution? Does it redeem the person offering the apology? Does it produce any legal effect at all, even though it does certainly have moral implications? Basically, what is the point of an apology for extremely serious facts (that sometimes, to be perfectly honest, seem beyond forgiveness) and what is its true validity in connection with the proceeding, the judgment, the State’s duty of justice, the claims to which the victim is entitled? Is it a part of the settlement and reconciliation? And, if so, what settling effects does it produce from the legal standpoint of the international Court’s judgment, which extends to the duties of the State? 29. In the experience of the Inter-American Court, it is increasingly more frequent to find cases in which there is a full or partial acknowledgement of liability by the State, which accepts (confesses to, as a State) the existence of the violation and the identity of the affected parties, recognizes that such violations breach specific provisions of the ACHR and even commits to certain reparations. This phenomenon marks a positive trend in the protection of human rights and the legal and moral redress to the victims. The Court has recognized the merits of this trend and the value entailed by the acknowledgement in each particular case. 30. It has been said that the acknowledgement might be intended to prevent the facts from being assessed by the Court and revealed to society, thus impairing the right to learn the truth. I am not questioning the reasons behind each specific acknowledgement. I would like to insist on the merits of the acknowledgement – which entails taking a step further beyond the denial of facts that are impossible to conceal or the defense of situations that cannot possibly be justified— and note that it does not prevent the facts from being known by the court or revealed to society. No such thing is possible if we take into consideration the well-established practice of holding public hearings at which witness accounts of the facts are heard –even if the focus is on reparations— and that of having the judgment include an account of the violations that are the source of reparations, notwithstanding the confession, acceptance or acknowledgement by the State; in other prosecutorial systems this might cause the proceeding to come to an early end by dismissal, with no account of facts that are no longer at issue and no witness testimony on events that nobody has denied. Sergio García-Ramírez Judge Pablo Saavedra Alessandri Secretary