in a case before the Court, inform it of the existence of a friendly settlement, compromise, or any other occurrence likely to lead of a settlement of the dispute, the Court shall rule upon its admissibility and juridical effects at the appropriate procedural time.” Therefore, in accordance with the aforementioned rule, this Court will determine the validity and legal effects of the friendly settlement agreement reached by the parties. 8 19. The Court also recalls that, according to Article 63, it is possible that in proceedings before this Court the parties may reach friendly settlements, the appropriateness of which must be assessed by the Court. Reaching this type of settlement may lead to a more prompt and effective reparation for the victims in the case. In addition, it may contribute to the objectives of the inter-American system for the protection of human rights, and especially to the purpose of finding just solutions to the specific and structural problems of a case. 9 20. Furthermore, the Court observes that, according to the abovementioned article as well as Article 64 of the Rules of Procedure, 10 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 this Court to ensure that friendly settlement agreements are acceptable for the purposes sought by the inter-American system. In this task the Court does not limit itself to merely confirming, recording or taking note of the acknowledgement made by the State, or verifying the formal conditions of such actions, but must weigh them against the nature and seriousness of the alleged violations, the requirements and interests of justice, the particular circumstances of the specific case, and the attitude and position of the parties, in order to determine, insofar as possible and in the exercise of its competence, the truth of what occurred in the case. 11 In this sense, the agreement cannot have the consequence of violating, directly or indirectly, the object and purpose of the American Convention. 21. To this end, the Court must analyze the situation presented in each specific case, verifying that the agreement - which may be submitted to the Court at any stage of the contentious proceeding - is signed by the parties. Having given notice to the parties and to the Commission and, where appropriate, having sought their respective observations, the Court will verify that the formal and material requirements are met to proceed to endorse the agreement by means of a judgment. 22. The Court finds that the agreement submitted contemplates a settlement between the parties to the dispute in relation to the facts and the determination of human rights violations, along the lines of those established in the Merits Report, as well as the measures of reparation. The Court understands that, given the manner in which the State formulated its acknowledgment of responsibility, it also includes the legal considerations that led said body to conclude that these violations were committed to the detriment of the victims in this case. 23. Furthermore, the Court highlights the willingness of the parties to reach a solution to the dispute in the instant case, and particularly emphasizes the procedural moment in which Cf. Case of García Cruz and Sánchez Silvestre v. Mexico. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013, Series C No. 273, para. 17, and Case of Escaleras Mejía et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 15. 8 Cf. Case of Pacheco Teruel et al. v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 27, 2012. Series C No. 241, para. 19, and Case of Escaleras Mejía et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 16. 9 10 Article 64 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. “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.” Cf. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 17, and Case of Escaleras Mejía et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 17. 11 8