-8- all the national radio stations, so that Colombian society, which for many years has heard the type of declaration and messages to which [he] referred, […] can hear the message that the Colombian delegation delivered in this Court.” In their briefs, the representatives considered that the acknowledgement made by the State was limited and did not contribute to restituting the honor of the alleged victims. Specifically, they considered that the dispute subsisted in relation to legal and factual matters, and that a satisfactory analysis of the factual and legal framework of the case called for an assessment of the aspects that had not been acknowledged.13 16. The Commission considered that the dispute subsisted in relation to a significant number of the facts supposedly acknowledged. Therefore, even though it accepted that those recognized by the State without any conditions or reserves had been proved, it deemed that the Court should make its own assessment of the facts, the legal consequences, and the corresponding reparations, in accordance with the gravity and nature of the violations alleged in this case. 17. According to Articles 56(2) and 58 of the Rules of Procedure, and in exercise of its powers of international protection of human rights, a matter of international public order that transcends the will of the parties, the Court can determine whether an acknowledgement of international responsibility made by a defendant State offers sufficient grounds, in the terms of the Convention, for continuing the examination of the merits and determining possible reparations and costs.14 Thus the latter does not prevent the Court from providing justice in the instant case, but rather the contrary. Consequently, 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,15 in order to determine, insofar as possible and in the exercise of its competence, the truth of what occurred in the case. 18. In the instant case, the Court finds, as it has in other cases it has heard,16 that the State’s partial acknowledgement of the facts and acquiescence with regard to 13 Among other aspects, the representatives indicated that the State had not acknowledged the following: “the facts that gave rise to the risks faced by Manuel Cepeda from the moment he became involved with the UP and up until the time of his death; the participation of paramilitaries and senior members of the Army in the murder of Senator Cepeda; the existence of a pattern of generalized and systematic violence under which the extrajudicial execution of the Senator occurred; the political activism of the Senator and the consequences that the crime had for the political movement to which he belonged, and the continuing situation of risk faced by Senator Cepeda’s next of kin.” 14 Article 56(2) of the Rules of Procedure establishes that: If the respondent informs the Court of its acquiescence to the claims of the party that has brought the case or the claims of the alleged victims or their representatives, the Court shall decide, after hearing the opinions of the other parties to the case, whether to accept such acquiescence, and rule upon its juridical effects. In that event, the Court shall determine the corresponding reparations and costs. While, Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure stipulates that: 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 paragraphs. 15 Cf. Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008. Series C No. 177, para. 24; González et al. (“Campo Algodonero”) v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 16, 2009. Series C No. 205, para. 25, and Ticona Estrada v. Bolivia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 21. 16 Cf. Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 46; Escué Zapata v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007.