- 17 - of responsibility, its intention must be clear. 38 Contrary to the representatives’ allegation, this Court does not consider that the State’s interventions and briefs before the Commission reveal a clear intention to acknowledge its international responsibility for all the facts that have occurred in the context of the investigations and judicial actions up until March 14, 2013.39 Consequently, the Court will take the date of September 2010 as the temporal limit for the acknowledgement of international responsibility for these violations, which was the date that the State expressly and clearly indicated should be used for this purpose. Therefore, the Court concludes that the dispute persists for the deficiencies and delays in the investigation after that date. B.3 Regarding the reparations 38. This Court notes that the dispute subsists in relation to the determination of possible reparations, costs and expenses. Therefore, in the corresponding chapter (infra Chapter X), it will determine the corresponding measures of reparation, taking into account the requests of the Commission and the representatives, the case law of the Court on this matter, and the respective arguments and requests of the State. B.4 Assessment of the acquiescence 39. The Court appreciates the partial acknowledgement of international responsibility made by the State. This action makes a positive contribution to the development of this process, to the principles that inspire the Convention40 and, in part, to satisfying the need for reparation of the victims of human rights violations.41 40. As in other cases,42 the Court considers that the acknowledgement made by the State has full legal effects pursuant to Articles 62 and 64 of the Court���s Rules of Procedure mentioned previously, and has an important symbolic value to ensure that similar facts are not repeated. In addition, the Court notes that the acknowledgment of specific facts and violations may have Cf. Case of Gelman v. Uruguay. Merits and reparations. Judgment of February 24, 2011 Series C No.221, para. 28, and Munárriz Escobar et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 20, 2018. Series C No. 355, para. 24. 38 The acknowledgment of international responsibility made by the State before the Commission was in general terms, without specifying dates. As mentioned by the Commission in its Merits Report and as it appears in the corresponding briefs, the reference to March 14, 2013, as “the critical date” was used by the State as a reference for the start of the “evaluation of the appropriateness of the investigations as a measure of reparation.” The Court considers that the statements made by the State concerning its obligation to make reparation do not necessarily entail an acknowledgement of international responsibility for the deficiencies in the investigation up until that date. See, inter alia, video of the State’s intervention during the public hearing held before the Inter-American Commission on March 14, 2013 (evidence file, folder of audiovisual material); communication of the State of April 8, 2013 (evidence file, folios 11618 and 11619); brief of the State of March 24, 2015 (evidence file, folio 11360); brief of the State of June 2, 2016 (evidence file, folio 11944), and Merits Report No. 74/15, paras. 9, 10, 58, 59 and 63 to 69 (merits file, folios 12 and 20 to 22). 39 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 Ramírez Escobar et al. v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 9, 2018. Series C No. 351, para. 34. 40 Cf. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 18, and Case of Ramírez Escobar et al. v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 9, 2018. Series C No. 351, para. 34. 41 Cf. inter alia, Case of Torres Millacura et al. v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 26, 2011. Series C No. 229, para. 37, and Case of López Soto et al. v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2018. Series C No. 362, para. 39. 42