21 69. In the present case, a friendly settlement was reached between Ms. Carmen Alicia Estrada, in her name and in the name of her son, Ramón Mauricio García Prieto Estrada, and El Salvador on January 23, 2007.35 In this agreement a pecuniary compensation was established. This Court observes that, in accordance with its responsibility to protect human rights, it may order that a case continue to be heard, even when the parties have undertaken acts which ostensibly put an end to the proceedings or resolve the conflict (Article 55 of the Rules of the Court). 70. Thus, although Ms. Estrada alleged in her brief containing pleadings and motions that she was a victim of the events of the present case, the Court will continue with the analysis of this case with respect to the alleged violations to the detriment of José Mauricio García Prieto Hirlemann and Gloria Giralt de García Prieto and will not analyze the violations alleged by Ms. Carmen Alicia Estrada, who renounced her claims in these proceedings in the abovementioned “friendly settlement”. * * * 2. Investigation into the death of Ramón Mauricio García Prieto within the limits of the Court’s jurisdiction 71. In its application, the Commission alleged that, subsequent to June 6, 1995, the State failed to fulfill its obligation to effectively and adequately investigate the death of Ramón Mauricio García Prieto and the threats and harassment suffered by 35 During the public hearing held at the headquarters of the Tribunal on January 26, 2007, the State indicated that it had “arrived at a friendly settlement [with Ms. Estrada, pursuant to] Article 54 [of the Rules of Procedure…]”. On February 14, 2007, the State submitted the agreement consummated before a notary public on January 23, 2007 between Carmen Alicia Estrada, as legal representative of her own interests and those of her son, Ramón Mauricio García Prieto Estrada, and the State of El Salvador. This agreement expressed, inter alia, that: a) “the State, despite having already investigated, identified, prosecuted and punished two of the material authors of the murder of Mr. García Prieto Giralt, pursuant to applicable legislation, and having observed due process, […] as well as having undertaken efforts to identify those responsible and determine if others had participated in the crime, and conscious of the fact that the daily life of [Carmen Alicia Estrada and her minor son] and their hopes for the future have been affected, has sought to approach them in order to demonstrate the State’s authentic solidarity with their present and future circumstances”. The State consummated the agreement, among other reasons, “because of its policy of solidarity with, protection of, and respect for childhood and for the family […]”; b) the State and Ms. Carmen Alicia Estrada, as legal representative of her own interests and those of her son, “have arrived at a Friendly Settlement, in order to put an early end to the proceedings”, pursuant to Article 54 of the Rules of Procedure; c) the State delivers to the minor Ramón Mauricio García Prieto Estrada, through his legal representative Carmen Alicia Estrada, and to Carmen Alicia Estrada, a single compensatory indemnity, whose amounts include corresponding costs and expenses, which she receives; and d) the parties to the present agreement “freely and voluntarily express their approval and acceptance of its contents”. Likewise, they express that “in this way they seek to end the controversy about the State’s international responsibility […] with respect to the affected rights of Carmen Alicia Estrada and Ramón Mauricio García Prieto Estrada, and that consequently, they deemed the claims made by her during the proceedings to be satisfied”; that Carmen Alicia Estrada frees the State of “any present or future claim or responsibility that could arise from the proceedings before the Inter-American Court”; and that “she expressly authorizes the State […] to inform the [Inter-American Court] […] of the present Friendly Settlement, so that […] the Tribunal should certify it […]”.