they did so. This allows the Court to arrive at a judgment more expeditiously than if the international proceeding had been completed. Thus, the dispute in this proceeding concluded without the need for a public hearing and without the final written procedure being carried out. 12 24. In accordance with the terms in which the agreement was signed, the Court considers that the factual dispute has ceased. Although this means it is unnecessary for the Court to make its own determination of the facts and legal consequences, in order to ensure a better understanding of the case and, in particular, in light of the agreement reached, the Court deems it appropriate to summarize the relevant facts and background based on the contents of the Merits Report which, as previously indicated, have been acknowledged by the State. In this regard, the Court recalls that the parties agreed to the following: Through this Friendly Settlement Agreement, the parties have agreed to the cessation of the dispute and the corresponding reparations. The parties agree that there is still a need for jurisprudence on the content and scope of the rights of the American Convention that were affected in this case by virtue of the activities of the extractive fishing industry in the Miskito territory and, in particular, those derived from Article 26 and its relationship with Articles 1(1) and 2 of the [American Convention]. The purpose of the foregoing is for the Inter-American Court to provide elements to the States of the region regarding their obligations to respect and guarantee human rights when companies and indigenous peoples are involved, so that events such as those that occurred in the instant case are not repeated. 25. At the same time, although the Court considers that the dispute has also ceased on the arguments related to the violations of the rights to life, life with dignity, personal integrity, the rights of the child, judicial guarantees, judicial protection, the rights to work, health and social security, and the right to equality and non-discrimination, contained in Articles 4(1), 5(1), 8(1), 19, 24, 25(1) and 26 of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations established in Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, to the detriment of the persons indicated in Annex 1 of this judgment, and of the rights to personal integrity to the detriment of the victims’ next of kin, the Court will, where relevant, refer to the violations of the rights indicated, as it deems necessary (infra Chapter VI). Subsequently, the Court will analyze the agreement in order to determine whether its endorsement is appropriate (infra Chapter VII). 26. Finally, the Court appreciates the willingness of Honduras to make full reparation for the harm caused to the victims by the violations that occurred in the instant case and to prevent the recurrence of such violations. With respect to the reparation measures described in the agreement reached by the State, the victims and their representatives, the Court will analyze them in order to determine whether they should be endorsed and, if so, their scope and means of implementation (infra Chapter VIII). V. FACTS 27. According to the friendly settlement agreement, “the State accepts that the facts that form the factual basis of this Friendly Settlement Agreement and, therefore, of the acknowledgment of its international responsibility, are those facts considered proven by the [Commission] in its Merits Report Nº 64/18, adopted on May 8, 2018, which forms an integral part of the agreement, and which the State agrees to abide by within the framework of its Mutatis mutandis, Case of García Cruz and Sánchez Silvestre v. Mexico, para. 19, and Case of Escaleras Mejía et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 20. 12 9