Court's competence to analyze direct violations of the CIADDIS, it is not appropriate to rule on the direct violations of the instrument alleged by the representative. This does not prevent the articles of the CIADDIS from being used to interpret the American Convention and other pertinent inter-American instruments.10 B.3. Regarding reparations 21. The Court notes that although the state considered admissible the determination of measures of reparation in this case, dispute persists as to the content of those measures, and the Court will therefore proceed to examine them. B.4. Assessment of the acknowledgment of responsibility 22. The recognition made by the State constitutes a total acceptance of the facts and a total recognition of the violations alleged by the Commission in the Report on the Merits. This Court finds that the total acknowledgment of international responsibility makes a positive contribution to the development of these proceedings and the observance of the principles that inspire the Convention, as well as to the alleged victims’ needs for reparation.11 The state’s acknowledgment has full legal effects, pursuant to articles 62 and 64 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, as indicated. Owing to the comprehensive acknowledgment made by the state, the Court considers that the legal dispute in this case has ceased with regard to the facts, the relevant law, and the need to adopt measures of reparation, pursuant to the terms established by the Commission in its Report on the Merits. 23. In the specific circumstances of this case, the Court finds it pertinent to deliver a judgment in which the facts are determined, based on the evidence gathered during the proceedings before this Court and the acceptance of those facts, as well as their legal consequences and the corresponding reparations. Additionally, the Court does not deem it necessary to rule on the human rights violations that took place to the detriment of Mr. Guevara as far as the response of the authorities to reject the administrative and judicial appeals filed by the victim, as these violations were explicitly acknowledged by the state in and shall be held at the Organization's headquarters, unless a state party offers to host it. 3. At the first meeting, the states parties undertake to submit a report to the Secretary General of the Organization for transmission to the Committee so that it may be examined and reviewed. Thereafter, reports shall be submitted every four years. 4. The reports prepared under the previous paragraph shall include information on measures adopted by the member states pursuant to this Convention and on any progress made by the states parties in eliminating all forms of discrimination against persons with disabilities. The reports shall indicate any circumstances or difficulties affecting the degree of fulfillment of the obligations arising from this Convention. 5. The Committee shall be the forum for assessment of progress made in the application of the Convention and for the exchange of experience among the states parties. The reports prepared by the committee shall reflect the deliberations; shall include information on any measures adopted by the states parties pursuant to this Convention, on any progress they have made in eliminating all forms of discrimination against persons with disabilities, and on any circumstances or difficulties they have encountered in the implementation of the Convention; and shall include the committee's conclusions, its observations, and its general suggestions for the gradual fulfillment of the Convention. 6. The committee shall draft its rules of procedure and adopt them by a simple majority. 7. The Secretary General shall provide the Committee with the support it requires in order to perform its functions.” Cf. Case of Furlán and Relatives v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, para. 133; Case of Chinchilla Sandoval et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 29, 2016. Series C No. 312, para. 207, and Case of Guachalá Chimbo et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of March 26, 2021. Series C No. 423, para. 75; 10 Cf. Case of Benavides Cevallos v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 19, 1998. Series C No. 38, para. 57, and Case of Palacio Urrutia et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2021. Series C No. 446, para. 29. 11 7