- 15 - 34. Pursuant to Articles 62 and 64 of the Rules of Procedure32 and in exercise of its powers concerning the international judicial protection of human rights, a matter of international public order, it is incumbent on this Court to ensure that acts of acknowledgement of responsibility are acceptable for the purposes sought by the inter-American system. This task is not limited to observing, recording or taking note of the acknowledgment made, or its formal conditions; rather the Court must compare these with the nature and gravity of the violations that have been alleged, the requirements and interests of justice, the particular circumstances of the specific case, and the attitude and position of the parties, 33 so that it is able to clarify, insofar as possible and in the exercise of its jurisdiction, the judicial truth of the events. 34 Thus, the acknowledgement cannot have the consequence of limiting, either directly or indirectly, the exercise of the Court’s authority to hear the case that has been submitted to it 35 and to decide whether there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by the Convention.36 To this end, the Court analyzes the situation presented in each specific case. 37 B.1 Regarding the facts 35. The Court notes that, in the instant case, the State expressly acknowledged the facts described in paragraphs 112 to 307 of the Commission’s Merits Report, These correspond to the individual facts with regard to the eleven women presumed victims in this case and to their next of kin, and to the criminal proceedings related to the facts denounced in the case. Although the State added that it also acknowledged paragraphs 372 to 386 and 405, 406 and 411, the Court notes that those paragraphs do not correspond to the description of the facts of the case, but are transcriptions of articles of the American Convention and establish standards for the investigation of human rights violations. Consequently, the Court understands that Mexico has acknowledged: (i) the individual acts that befell Mariana Selvas Gómez, Georgina Edith Rosales Gutiérrez, María Patricia Romero Hernández, Norma Aidé Jiménez Osorio, Claudia Hernández Martínez, Bárbara Italia Méndez Moreno, Ana María Velasco Rodríguez, Yolanda Muñoz Diosdada, María Cristina Sánchez Hernández, Angélica Patricia Torres Linares and Suhelen Gabriela Cuevas Jaramillo, Articles 62 and 64 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court establish: “Article 62. Acquiescence: If 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. […] Article 64. Continuation of the case: Bearing in mind its responsibility to protect human rights, the Court may decide to continue the consideration of a case notwithstanding the existence of the conditions indicated in the preceding Articles. 32 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. 33 Cf. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 17, and Case of Ramírez Escobar et al. v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 9, 2018. Series C No. 351, para. 27. 34 Article 62(3) of the Convention establishes: “[t]he jurisdiction of the Court shall comprise all cases concerning the interpretation and application of the provisions of this Convention that are submitted to it, provided that the States Parties to the case recognize or have recognized such jurisdiction, whether by special declaration pursuant to the preceding paragraphs, or by a special agreement.”. 35 Article 63(1) of the Convention stipulates: “[i]f the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by this Convention, the Court shall rule that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated. It shall also rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measure or situation that constituted the breach of such right or freedom be remedied and that fair compensation be paid to the injured party.”. 36 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 105, and Case of Munárriz Escobar et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 20, 2018. Series C No. 355, para. 24. 37