11 acknowledgement includes the facts, the context in which they occurred, and all the human rights violations alleged in its application. In addition, the Commission stated that “it is the first time that, faced with the very serious incidents […] that occurred during the war in El Salvador, a […] State has […] come forward to acknowledge serious acts of violence and grave human rights violations.” In its brief with final arguments, it assessed the Salvadoran State’s apology to Gregoria Herminia Contreras. It found that both the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility and its apology had a relevant symbolic and historical value, because the extent of the disappearance of children during the armed conflict was hidden by the Salvadoran State for many years during which it denied the existence of this systematic practice. 24. The representatives, for their part, acknowledged the State’s good will when making its acknowledgment of responsibility and found that the clarifications introduced by the State “are a sign of good faith.” They also stated that it was crucial that the Court accept the Salvadoran State’s acknowledgment of responsibility, inasmuch as it was addressed at recognizing the rights of the victims and their dignity, and was thus consistent with the purposes of the inter-American system. They indicated that they had recognized this change of position since the Government of President Mauricio Funes came to power. Nevertheless, they indicated that they do not see how this change of position can be put into practice. 25. Under Articles 62 and 64 of the Rules of Procedure12 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 the Court’s responsibility to ensure that acts of acquiescence are acceptable for the goals sought by the inter-American system. This task is not limited to verifying, recording or taking note of the acknowledgment made by the State, or to confirming the formal conditions of such acts; rather, it must examine them in keeping with 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,13 so that it can elucidate the truth about what took place, to the extent possible and in the exercise of its competence.14 26. In this regard, the Court assesses positively the State’s willingness to declare an extensive acknowledgment of international responsibility, owing to its significance within the framework of the inter-American system for the protection of human rights because, for the Court, it represents an admission of the facts contained in the factual framework of the 12 Articles 62 and 64 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure establish: 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. 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. 13 Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008. Series C No. 177, para. 24; Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 4, 2011. Series C No. 223, para. 22, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2010. Series C No. 218, para. 63. 14 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; Case of Abrill Alosilla et al., supra note 13, para. 22, and Case of Vélez Loor, supra note 13, para. 63.