7 27. The Inter-American Court, exercising its contentious jurisdiction, applies and interprets the American Convention, and when a case is submitted to its jurisdiction, the Court has the power and authority to determine the international responsibility of a State Party to the Convention for any violations to the provisions of the same.1 28. The Court, exercising its inherent powers for the international judicial protection of human rights, may determine if an acknowledgment of international responsibility carried out by a respondent State provides enough grounds, in the terms of the American Convention, to proceed or not to dispose of the merits and to determine possible reparations. To such effects, the Tribunal is to analyze the situation in each specific case.2 29. In the answer to the application (supra para. 12) Peru acknowledged its international responsibility for having broken Articles 1(1), 4(1), 5(1), 5(2), 7(1), 7(2), 7(3), 7(4), 7(5) and 7(6) of the American Convention, to the detriment of Mr. Santiago Gómez-Palomino. Likewise, the State acknowledged “the damage caused to his family, to Mrs. Victoria Margarita Palomino-Buitrón and [to] her who was his common-law wife Esmila Liliana Conislla-Cárdenas” and requested the Court to: • [c]onsider that the Peruvian State has made t[h]e necessary efforts aimed at reaching a friendly settlement[;] • [c]onsider that the Peruvian State acknowledges international responsibility for the forced disappearance of Mr. Santiago Fortunato Gómez-Palomino[;] • [c]onsider that the expression “duly proved” disappearance in the current wording of the criminal description of forced disappearance, provided and punished under Article 320 of the Penal Code is not a hindrance nor a hurdle for investigating and judging those who turn out to be responsible for the forbidden act[;] • [c]onsider that the Peruvian State has set up a Comisión Especial Revisora del Código Penal (Special Commission for the Revision of the Penal Code) (Law Number 27837), now in the process of analyzing and redrafting criminal descriptions[. S]pecifically the crimes against humanity[…] which are being adapted to the Rome Statute[;] • [t]ake into account that Peru is currently living in a democracy, where the Rule of Law is established, where the Due Process Principles and Effective Judicial Protection are respected[, and] • PASS JUDGMENT DECLARING THE CLOSURE of the application filed by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. 30. In its brief clarifying the answer to the application (supra para. 14) Peru acknowledged, as regards the alleged breach of Article 5 of the American Convention, “that the direct family of the victim, in other words his mother, his daughter and his partner, had been affected”, and pointed out that “in the case of the brothers and sisters it is needed to show the degree of damage and the consequences they have suffered on account of the disappearance of their brother.” As regards the alleged breach of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, the State pointed out that it “extends from the date the event was committed up to the time of transition [towards] democracy, for it was only from November, 2000 on that the conditions of freedom and institutional independence of the Office of the Public Prosecutor and of the Judiciary were given so that the jurisdictional authorities 1 Cf. Case of the "Mapiripán Massacre". Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 64. 2 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 1, para. 65.