13 methods and time limits for complying with the reparations. There is no document in the case file before the Court that establishes the existence of specific restrictions to the agent signing the said agreement. In this regard, the representative indicated that they had reached an agreement “convinced that they were dealing with an agent validly appointed by the State to represent it” (supra para. 34). 56. Furthermore, having established that domestic reasons and practices do not justify the international actions of a State, it is important to indicate that, on this occasion, the State has taken two positions; namely: (a) presentation of the agreement on the methods and time limits for compliance and, (b) the subsequent contestation of this agreement for reasons of domestic order and practice. The Court considers that a State which has taken a specific position, which produces legal effects, cannot subsequently assume another conduct contrary to the former, based on the principle of estoppel.5 57. In view of the foregoing, the Court does not accept the contestation of the said agreement filed by Peru, because, in the instant case, it would affect the legal certainty of the alleged victim and his next of kin, who, through their representatives, pursuant to Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, entered into an agreement on the methods and time limits for complying with the reparations in good faith with the State agent appointed to the case at that time. 58. In conclusion, the Court considers that, pursuant to the acquiescence submitted by Peru, the agreement on the methods and time limits for complying with the reparations reached by the parties produced legal effects in the instant case from the moment it was presented to the Court (supra para. 28). Nevertheless, the Court must examine this agreement to decide whether all its points can be endorsed.6 59. According to Articles 53(2) and 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court must decide whether the acquiescence is admissible and also on the legal effects (infra paras. 62 to 84) of the acquiescent and of the agreement on the methods and time limits for complying with the reparations reached by the parties (supra para. 28). To this end, it must verify whether they are compatible with the Convention and also whether the payment of fair compensation to the next of kin of the alleged victims is guaranteed and whether the different consequences of the human rights violations committed in this case are repaired. VI PROVEN FACTS 60. Since the State has signified its acquiescence in this case, the Court considers that the facts described in the application filed by the Commission have been established; nothing in the case file before the Court contradicts the facts. They were 5 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al.. Preliminary objections. Judgment of December 11, 1991. Series C No. 13, para. 29. 6 Cf. Case of Durand and Ugarte. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of December 3, 2001, Series C No. 89, para. 23; and Case of Barrios Altos. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 30, 2001. Series C No. 87, para. 23.