It also expressed its satisfaction regarding the parties’ joint request that the Court rule on the points of law requested (supra para. 15), and “endorsed the request” given the “impact this ruling could have on the Inter-American public order.” C) Considerations of the Court 17. In accordance with Article 63 (Friendly Settlement) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure,14 the Court shall decide on the provisions and legal effects of the Friendly Settlement Agreement agreed to by the parties and the acknowledgment of international responsibility made by the State. 18. The Court has confirmed that this agreement envisages a settlement of the dispute between the parties in this case in relation to the facts, the violation of human rights and the determination of reparations. Furthermore, it includes an acknowledgment of the international responsibility by the State with respect to all the facts and human rights violations declared by the Commission in its Merits Report, including those that occurred prior to Mexico’s acceptance of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction. The Court considers that, given the manner in which the State acknowledged its responsibility for the violations declared by the Inter-American Commission (supra para. 12), the State also understands the legal considerations which led the Commission to conclude that these violations were committed to the detriment of the victims in this case. 19. The Court highlights the willingness of the victims, their representatives and the State to reach a settlement to the dispute in this case and particularly emphasizes the procedural stage at which the settlement was reached. This case differs from others in that the friendly settlement reached by the parties and the State’s acknowledgment of international responsibility occurred an early stage of the proceedings before this Court, prior to the deadline set for the State to present its response, in which it asked the Court to dispense with the proposed public hearing.15 This allows the Court to arrive at a Judgment on the merits, reparations and costs much sooner than if the case had entailed an international proceeding to obtain justice and reparations for the victims in this case. Thus, the dispute in this proceeding ended without the need to hold a public hearing, or to receive expert evidence, testimony or statements from the victims, and without the need to conduct the final written procedure. 20. Furthermore, the Court stresses the significance of the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility, given that it accepted all the facts presented in the Commission’s Report on Merits, including those prior to the State’s acceptance of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction, as well as the legal claims contained in the Report with respect to the violations of the victims’ human rights. 21. Based on the foregoing, and in accordance with the terms under which the agreement between the parties was signed and the State’s acknowledgment of international responsibility in the case, the Court considers that the dispute over the facts has concluded, together with the arguments concerning the violations “of the following rights contained in the [American Convention]: personal liberty (Article 7), humane treatment (Article 5), right to a fair trial and judicial protection (Articles 8 and 25), all in relation to the general obligation to respect rights 14 Article 63 provides that “When the Commission; the victims or alleged victims, or their representatives; the respondent State; or, if applicable, the petitioning State in a case before the Court inform it of the existence of a friendly settlement, compromise, or any other occurrence likely to lead to a settlement of the dispute, the Court shall rule upon its admissibility and juridical effects at the appropriate procedural time.” 15 In the proceedings before the Court, no documentary evidence, victims’ statements or expert reports were received, nor did the Court or its President request evidence or explanations to clarify the case. 7