10 51. The Court finds it necessary to address two issues before going deep into the arguments of the parties and assess the evidence produced in the instant case, to wit: a) the acknowledgment by the State with regard to the events occurred before September 2005; and b) the alleged new events asserted by the representatives in their brief of requests and arguments. a) Acknowledgment by the State with regard to the events occurred prior to September 2000 52. At the public hearing held on May 10, 2005 (supra para. 33) the State acknowledged the events occurred before September 2000, which had been detailed in the application filed by the Commission, “as that was precisely the time when democracy wa[s] restor[ed] in [Peru].” 53. Furthermore, when Pedro Ramírez-Rojas, Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas’ brother, was examined, Peru stated that “it wish[ed] that the damage caused to his brother could be redressed.” Afterwards, during the examination of Wilson García-Asto, Peru acknowledged “the responsibility of the State, among other things, for the situation of García-Asto prior to September 2000.” 54. When the witnesses ended their testimonies, the State added that “the acknowledgment of responsibility ma[de] by the State w[as] global and general and appl[ied] to the consequences resulting from the application of the [19]92 laws within the territory of Peru.” 55. Moreover, in response to the questions posed by the Court, the State asserted that the controversy concerning the events acknowledged had ended and that the acknowledgment covered the events detailed in the brief of requests and arguments filed by the representatives, except for those that “fell beyond the State's declaration” because they had been introduced as new facts in the proceedings before the Court (infra paras. 63 to 79). 56. In its closing written arguments the State pointed out that purpose of the acknowledgment related to the events alleged by the Commission and the representatives in the instant case was to acknowledge that the institutional scenario of the events occurred before September 2000 prevented the State from providing a reasonable defense that would alternatively allow determining the true conditions of treatment imposed on the [alleged] victims. This mere fact sufficed for the State to feel responsible for the violations declared by the [alleged] victims, in particular, by Mr. GarcíaAsto. 57. In view of the foregoing, it should be noted that the Inter-American Court, exercising its contentious jurisdiction, applies and interprets the American Convention, and when a case is submitted to its jurisdiction, the Court has the power and authority