9 acknowledgment of the facts in its brief answering the submission of the case, and with its observations on the pleadings and motions brief, and reiterated in its final oral and written arguments, unilaterally declared that said limitation of jurisdiction “is neither effective nor operational in the instant case.” That is to say, in all the procedural stages before the Court, the State has clearly expressed its willingness to acknowledge all the facts that occurred, as well as the violations declared in this case and their juridical consequences, expressly granting the Court jurisdiction to rule on all aspects of this case. Therefore, the Court does not find it necessary to consider the request of the representatives. The Court assesses positively the declaration made by the State for this specific case. Consequently, the Court has full jurisdiction to assess all the facts contained in the Report on the Merits No. 75/12, submitted to the Court’s jurisdiction by the Commission, and will now decide on the merits and the possible reparations in this case. IV ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY Acknowledgment of responsibility by the State and observations of the Commission and of the representatives 18. Referring to statements made in different cases before the Inter-American System, the State pointed out that, since 2009, it has developed a new national vision with respect to its obligations on human rights issues. As evidence of this, the State recalled that during the merits hearing held before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in the instant case, on November 6, 2009, it acknowledged that, “in the context of the armed conflict [that took place in the country], between 1980 and 1991, there was a systematic pattern of forced disappearances of children and adolescents in different areas, especially in those most affected by armed combat and military operations, although this reality was denied for many years.” Accordingly, the State recognized that enforced disappearance of children formed part of a pattern of violence that took place in El Salvador during the internal armed conflict. 19. The State declared before the Court that it acknowledged and accepted the facts alleged in the Commission’s presentation of the case, and considered as proven facts in section IV, letters C13, D14, E15 and F16 of the Report on Merits No. 75/12. As to the facts presented by the representatives in their pleadings and motions brief, the State accepted the content of section I of said brief, “specifically the part included in the section on circumstances and facts surrounding the disappearance of the victims in this case.” During the public hearing, the State reaffirmed its acknowledgment of the facts related to the disappearance of the girl Emelinda Lorena Hernández and the boys Santos Ernesto Salinas, José Adrián Rochac Hernández, Manuel Antonio Bonilla and Ricardo Abarca Ayala, together with the circumstances surrounding their disappearances, admitting that these occurred “as part of a pattern of violence that took place in El Salvador during the armed conflict between 1980 and 1991, which included the forced disappearance of children especially in those areas most affected by armed combat and military operations.” Similarly, in its final arguments the State explained that, “in accordance with the position expressed before the […] Court in cases concerning disappeared children during the internal armed conflict, and in recognition of its obligations under the American Convention on Human Rights, at the different procedural stages of this case, including the answer [to the submission of the case], the forwarding of observations to the independent brief of the representatives and the oral 13 With respect to José Adrián Rochac Hernández (“Facts surrounding his disappearance” and “Domestic proceedings”). 14 With respect to Santos Ernesto Salinas (“Facts surrounding his disappearance” and “Domestic proceedings”). 15 With respect to Emelinda Lorena Hernández (“Facts surrounding her disappearance” and “Domestic proceedings”). With respect to Manuel Antonio Bonilla and Ricardo Ayala Abarca (“Facts surrounding their disappearances” and “Domestic proceedings”). 16