10 Court to truly examine which obligations have been complied with and the rights breached by the State.” 27. With regards to the reparations, the representatives indicated that it is necessary for the Court to order the State “to comply with its international obligations and to compensate not only for the damage caused, but to take a series of non-pecuniary measures and guarantees of non-repetition so that this type of violation never occurs again”, and submitted to the Court their position in relation to the measures through which the State claims to have compensated the rights of the alleged victims. 28. Pursuant to Articles 56(2) and 58 of the Rules of Procedure, in the exercise of its powers of international judicial protection of human rights, the Court may determine whether a recognition of international responsibility by a respondent State offers a sufficient basis, under the terms of the American Convention, to continue to hear the merits and determine the eventual reparations and costs. To this purpose, the Court analyzes the situation set forth in each concrete case.18 29. Additionally, the Court notes that the evolution of the system for the protection of human rights currently allows the alleged victims or their next of kin to autonomously present a brief of pleadings, motions, and evidence, and to wield claims which may coincide or not with those of the Commission. When there is an acknowledgement, it must clearly express whether the State also accepts the claims presented by the alleged victims and their families.19 30. With regard to what was indicated by the Commission and the representatives regarding the scope of the State’s recognition of responsibility (supra para. 24 to 27), the Court notes that in the answer to the application the State partially recognized its international responsibility for the violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, and presented some considerations on the steps performed to comply with the investigation. Nevertheless, in the public hearing and in its brief of final arguments the State reiterated the position stated in the answer to the application “in the sense of acknowledging the claims of the Commission and the representatives, with regard to declaring breached only the rights established in Articles 8 and 25 of the [American Convention], on the grounds of the claim presented by FAMDEGUA.” 31. In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that in the proceedings before the Court the State limits its recognition of responsibility to the claims of the Commission and the representatives regarding the alleged violation to Articles 8(1) (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25(1) (Right to Judicial Protection) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of that instrument, and it accepts the claims of the parties with regards to those rights. 32. With regard to the facts of the application concerning the alleged violation of Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, the Court understands that although the State did not specifically acknowledge the facts mentioned in the application, it did acknowledge the facts that occurred as of March 9, 1987 related to the denial of justice, contained in paragraphs 137 to 282 of the 18 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 105; Case of Albán Cornejo et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2007. Series C No. 171, para. 14, and Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala, supra note 17, para. 24. 19 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 18, para. 107; Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of March 7, 2005. Series C No. 122, para. 28, and Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, para. 47.