18 54. Pursuant to Articles 62 32 and 64 33 of the Rules of Procedure, and in exercise of its powers of international judicial protection of human rights, a matter of international public order that transcends the will of the parties, it is incumbent upon the Court to ensure that acts of acquiescence are acceptable for the purposes sought by the inter-American system. To this end, the Court analyzes the situation in each specific case. 55. During the public hearing in this case, the State acknowledged its responsibility for the violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection, established in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, since “the investigation […] has so far not produced positive results.” It did not specify to whose detriment it recognized this violation. 56. Accordingly, the Court decides to accept the partial acknowledgment of responsibility made by the State, in the sense that it violated Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. Nevertheless, the Court notes that a dispute persists regarding the scope of these violations, and regarding which persons were harmed by them. The dispute also continues regarding the violations of the rights established in Articles 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 23 and 24 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof; of Article I of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons; and of Article 7 of the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence Against Women, as alleged by the Commission and/or the representatives. 57. Furthermore, the Court considers that, before the Inter-American Commission, the State acknowledged those facts as proven “through the files opened before the national justice institutions” which are also documented in the Report of the Commission for Historical Clarification (CEH). Likewise, in its answering brief, the State did not deny the facts of this case, or its obligation to “compensate the victims;” however, it raised a preliminary objection ratione temporis, arguing that the Court lacks jurisdiction to examine these facts. 58. Under Article 41(3) of the Rules of Procedure, 34 and by virtue of the principle of estoppel, 35 the Court considers the facts of the case to be accepted and will hold them to be true until the contrary appears from the record or results from judicial conviction (infra Chapter VIII). However, it will analyze such facts in accordance with the provisions of Chapter IV of this judgment. VI PRIOR CONSIDERATION A. Arguments of the Commission and the parties 59. In their pleadings and motions brief, the representatives invoked Article 35(2) of the Rules of Procedure in order to request the inclusion as alleged victims, in addition to the persons indicated in the Merits Report, Juan Pérez Sic, who is said to have disappeared, 18 relatives of 32 Article 62. Acquiescence. “If the respondent informs the Court of its acceptance of the facts or its total or partial acquiescence to the claims stated in the presentation of the case or the brief submitted by the alleged victims or their representatives, the Court shall decide, having heard the opinions of all those participating in the proceedings and at the appropriate procedural moment, whether to accept that acquiescence, and shall rule upon its juridical effects.” 33 Article 64. Continuation of a Case. “Bearing in mind its responsibility to protect human rights, the Court may decide to continue the consideration of a case notwithstanding the existence of the conditions indicated in the preceding Articles.” 34 Article 41(3): “The Court may consider those facts that have not been expressly denied and those claims that have not been expressly controverted as accepted.” 35 According to international practice, when a party to a dispute has adopted a certain attitude which is to its own detriment or to the benefit of another party, it cannot then, by virtue of the principle of estoppel, assume another conduct that is contradictory to the first. Cf. Case of Huilca Tecse v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 3, 2005. Series C No. 121, para. 56, and Case of the Peasant Community of Santa Bárbara v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 299, para. 27.