20 facilitate adjudication of the case made by the President of the Court through its note of November 15, 2006 (supra para. 125). V PARTIAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY 129. Below the Court will proceed to determine the scope of the partial acknowledgment of international responsibility made by the State (supra para. 56) and the extent of the subsisting controversy. 130. Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedures establishes that [i]f the respondent informs the Court of its acquiescence to the claims of the party that has brought the case as well as to the claims of the representatives of the alleged victims, their next of kin or representatives, the Court, after hearing the opinions of the other parties to the case, shall decide whether such acquiescence and its juridical effects are acceptable. In that event, the Court shall determine the appropriate reparations and indemnities. 131. The Inter-American Court, in exercising its contentious function, applies and interprets the American Convention. When a case has already been submitted to its jurisdiction, it is empowered to declare the international responsibility of a State Party to the Convention for violation of its provisions.3 132. The Court, in the use of its jurisdictional functions of international protection of human rights, may determine if an acknowledgment of international responsibility made by a respondent State is well-based, in the terms of the American Convention, to conclude the proceedings or if it is necessary to continue with the examination of the merits and the determination of the possible reparations and costs. For these effects, the Tribunal will analyze the situation presented in each specific case.4 133. In the present case, the State has partially acknowledged the facts in different acts before the Court. In the public hearing before the Tribunal (supra para. 93) the State made a more ample and specific acknowledgment regarding the facts than the one made in its response to the petition and observations to the brief of pleadings and motions (supra para. 56). In its final written arguments (supra para. 105) Peru reiterated said acknowledgment in the terms of the one made in the mentioned hearing. 134. In its factual and judicial considerations, this Court will consider the more ample acknowledgment made by the State, to which it will make reference in the following paragraphs. Since in the mentioned public hearing, and in its final arguments the State did not refer expressly to the matter of the victims or the rights violated, the Tribunal will refer, in what refers to these matters, to that previously indicated by the State in its response to the application and observations to the brief of pleadings and motions. 3 Cfr. Case of Vargas Areco. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, para. 42; Case of Servellón García et al.. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, para. 52; and Case of Ximenes Lopes. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149, para. 61. 4 Cfr. Case of Vargas Areco, supra note 3, para. 43; Case of Servellón García et al., supra note 3, para. 53; and Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra note 3, para. 62.