11 persons, to the detriment of Carmen Teresa Omeara Miraval and Fabiola Álvarez Solano, as well as the girls Elba Katherine Omeara Álvarez and Claudia Marcela Omeara Álvarez and the boy Manuel Guillermo Omeara Alvarez, and d) for the violation of the rights of the child (Article 19) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention, for the harm and suffering caused by the violent acts perpetrated against the three members of the Omeara Miraval, Omeara Álvarez and Álvarez Solano families, who at the time of the events were children Elba Katherine, Claudia Marcela and Manuel Guillermo, with the surnames Omeara Álvarez. 26. The representatives indicated that the State plainly recognizes the violation of the rights of the direct next of kin of the three main victims, without further consideration. Therefore, the representatives requested that the acknowledgment made by the State regarding the next of kin of Messrs. Omeara Carrascal, Omeara Miraval and Álvarez Sánchez be dismissed and that the merits of the matter be continued, examining all the factual assumptions and legal grounds, ordering the responsibility of the State and indicating the pertinent reparations. 27. The Commission argued that the acknowledgment covers all the victims mentioned by the Commission in the Merits Report, which constitutes an important step towards full reparation for the victims in this case. Although the dispute persists regarding the fact that the State created the conditions of risk for the victims and that it was aware of said situation, which at the same time generated the forced displacement and it did not adopt the measures for their protection, particularly, with respect to the children of the Mr. Omeara Miraval, taking into account the fact they were children. Nor did the State consider, in the acknowledgment, the threats against Mrs. Carmen Omeara, which occurred in a context of threats and intimidation against witnesses and relatives of the victims. B. Considerations of the Court 28. Pursuant to Articles 62 and 64 of the Rules of Procedure13, and in the exercise of its powers of international judicial protection of human rights, a matter of international public order, it is incumbent on this Court to ensure that the acts of acknowledgment of responsibility are acceptable for the purposes the inter-American system seeks to fulfill. This task is not limited to verifying, registering or taking note of the acknowledgment made, or its formal conditions, but must confront them with the nature and seriousness 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,14 in such a way that it can specify, as far as possible and in the exercise of its jurisdiction, the legal truth of what happened.15 Articles 62 and 64 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure establish: “Article 62. Acknowledgment: If the defendant communicates to the Court their acceptance of the facts or their total or partial acceptance of the claims that appear in the submission of the case or in the brief from the presumed victims or their representatives, the Court, having heard the opinion of the other parties involved in the proceeding, will decide, at the appropriate procedural moment, on its origin and its legal effects.” "Article 64. Continuation of the examination of the case: The Court, taking into account the responsibilities incumbent on it to protect human rights, may decide to continue the examination of the case, even in the presence of the assumptions indicated in the preceding articles." 14 Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008. Series C No. 177, para. 24, and Case of Ramírez Escobar et al. v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 9, 2018. Series C No. 351, para. 27. 15 Cf. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 17, and Case of Escaleras Mejía et al. v. Honduras. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 361, para. 17. 13