10 24. The Commission stated that it valued the partial acknowledgment of international responsibility made by the State, even though it observed that “the language used was vague,” making it difficult to unambiguously determine its extent. With this in mind, the Commission added that although the State acknowledged the violation of the human rights of María Claudia García and María Macarena Gelman, “the language utilized suggests the existence of possible time limit, which is contrary to the ongoing nature of the violations committed against both [alleged victims].” It also noted that “the acknowledgment did not make reference to the established violations to the rights of the next of kin.” The Commission concluded that there remains a dispute about facts and violations in the present case not covered in the act of acknowledgment, as well as about possible reparations and costs, requesting that “said partial acknowledgment be accepted, and that the Court affirm its jurisdiction over the present matter, [declare] the alleged rights as violated," and that in its Judgment, "it include a detailed description of the facts and human rights violations.” 25. Article 62 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, which establishes that: [i]f the respondent informs the Court of its acceptance of the facts or its total or partial acquiescence to the claims stated in the presentation of the case or the brief submitted by the alleged victims or their representatives, the Court shall decide having heard the opinions of all those participating in the proceedings and at the appropriate procedural moment, whether to accept that acquiescence, and shall rule upon its juridical effects. 26. Consistent with this and in accordance with Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, and in the exercise of its powers of international judicial protection of human rights—a matter of international public order that transcends the will of the parties—the Court can determine whether the acknowledgment of international responsibility made by the defendant State offers a sufficient basis, in the terms of the American Convention, to continue the hearing of the merits and to determine the possible reparations,9 in order that the acknowledgment is acceptable for purposes of the Inter-American System of Human Rights, which seeks to satisfy, and so that it does not impede in the administration of justice in the case. Thus, the Court does not limit its authority to confirming, recording, or taking note of the acknowledgment or verifying the formal conditions of such actions,10 but rather it must weigh them against the nature and gravity of the alleged violations, the demands and interests of justice, the particular circumstances of the specific case, and the attitude and position of the parties, in order to determine, insofar as is possible, and in the exercise of its competence, the truth of what occurred in the case.11                                                          9 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 Rosendo Cantú et al. V. México. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010 Series C No. 216, para. 21, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña V. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2010 Series C No. 217, para. 33. 10 Cf. Case of Kimel V. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008. Series C No. 177, para. 24; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al., supra note 9, para. 22, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 9, para. 34. 11 Cf. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas V. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 17.