final release by installing closed-circuit video surveillance systems, a commitment that had already been fulfilled. It likewise indicated that it had already taken a first step toward adopting institutional measures to address discrimination, such as by overhauling the leadership of the Instituto Nacional contra la Discriminación, el Racismo y la Xenofobia (National Institute against Discrimination, Racism and Xenophobia, INADI) and the implementation of the International Decade for People of African Descent. It also noted a reform of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Nation that broadened the categories of people who can become complainants. 17. The representatives indicated that “it was only on March 10, 2020 that the Argentine State officially recognized the full magnitude and significance of its responsibility." However, they stated that this recognition does not erase the fact that “for 15 years, the Argentine State continued with the policy of concealment and impunity that has been denounced since April 5, 1996, with the aggravating circumstance that, over the course of those 15 years, the cover-up was in the hands of the State representatives responsible for protecting the rights of the victims, not guaranteeing impunity for the perpetrators.” They indicated that the State’s position throughout the process was to delay it unnecessarily and make false promises to the victim's relatives. They therefore asked that a judgment be issued finding the State responsible and granting measures of reparation requested, especially the measures of non-repetition. 18. The Commission “welcome[d] and appreciate[d] the State’s recognition.” It also stressed that "it constitutes a step toward reestablishing the rights of the victims and providing reparations for the violations found." However, it stressed that it should still be noted that “the State has not made public, neither to the Commission nor even to family” the content of the technical report on the case prepared by the Office of the Special Prosecutor against Interinstitutional Violence (hereinafter PROCUVIN). It therefore asked the Court to “declare the human rights violations found by the Commission in its Merits Report and fully recognized by the Argentine State during the public hearing." B. Considerations of the Court 19. 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.13 The Court will now proceed to analyze the situation in this specific case. B.1. Regarding the facts 20. During the public hearing, Argentina acknowledged responsibility for the facts alleged by the Commission in the Merits Report, which was reiterated in its final arguments brief. The Court therefore finds there is no longer a dispute between the parties regarding the arrest, detention and subsequent death of José Delfín Acosta Martínez, as well as regarding the actions carried out by his relatives in order to clarify the truth of the facts. B.2. Regarding the legal claims 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 Guzmán Albarracín et al v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 24, 2020. Series C No. 405, para. 19. 13 8