international law, the Court must ensure that acts of recognition of responsibility are acceptable for the purposes pursued by the inter-American system.7 B.1. Regarding the facts 17. In this case, the Court considers that the statements made by the state during the public hearing of March 24, 2022, and its final written arguments clearly show that the State has made a full acknowledgment of responsibility with regard to the facts laid out by the Commission in its Report on the Merits. B.2. Regarding the legal claims 18. The Court considers that the statements made by the State during the public hearing of March 24, 2022, and its final written arguments clearly indicate that Costa Rica has made a full acknowledgment of responsibility with regard to the human rights violations as laid out by the Commission in its Report on the Merits and has recognized the need to adopt measures of reparation. Consequently, the Court considers that the dispute has ceased with regard to the following: a) The violation of the rights to equality before the law and to work, set forth in articles 24 and 26 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with article 1(1), as a result of the discrimination of which Mr. Guevara was a victim in competitive hiring process 010179 due to his intellectual disability. b) The violation of the rights to judicial protection and the duty to offer justification, set forth in articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1), as a result of the response of the authorities that denied the appeals filed by Mr. Guevara. 19. Additionally, the Court notes that the representative alleged the violation of a series of articles of the Inter-American Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities (hereinafter also the “CIADDIS”), violations not acknowledged by the state. In this regard, the Court underscores that in the case of case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, it ratified the possibility of exercising its contentious competence with respect to other inter-American instruments beyond the American Convention in the context of instruments establishing a system of petitions subject to international supervision regionally.8 20. In this regard, the Court notes that in its Article VI, the CIADDIS establishes that states commit to creating a Committee for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities, but does not recognize the Court's competence to review direct violations of it.9 Therefore, in the absence of any provision recognizing the Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008. Series C No. 177, para. 24, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and Relatives v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2021. Series C No. 447, para. 19. 7 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 37. 8 Article VI of the CIADDIS establishes the following: “1. To follow up on the commitments undertaken in this Convention, a Committee for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities, composed of one representative appointed by each state party, shall be established. 2. The committee shall hold its first meeting within the 90 days following the deposit of the eleventh instrument of ratification. Said meeting shall be convened by the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States 9 6