acceptable for the purposes that the inter-American system seeks to achieve.18 In this case, the Court considers that the statements made by the State and the representatives in the agreement of March 4, 2020, during the public hearing of March 11, 2020, and in their final written arguments, as well as the observations of the Commission of March 23, 2020, clearly reveal that the State has made a total acknowledgement of responsibility with regard to the facts and the alleged human rights violations as laid out by the Commission in its Merits Report, and has recognized the need to adopt measures of reparation. Consequently, the Court considers that the dispute has ceased with regard to the following: a) The facts related to: (i) the relevant law; (ii) the context of detentions without a court order or the existence of a situation of flagrante delicto in Argentina at the time of the facts, and (iii) the detentions and the criminal proceedings brought against Carlos Alberto Fernández Prieto and Carlos Alejandro Tumbeiro. b) The violation of the rights to personal liberty, judicial guarantees, honor and dignity, and judicial protection recognized in Articles 7, 8, 11 and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations established in Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument, to the detriment of Carlos Alberto Fernández Prieto and Carlos Alejandro Tumbeiro. These violations occurred as a result of the illegal and arbitrary detention of which they were victims, as well as of the violations of due process and the lack of an effective judicial remedy in the proceedings brought against them. c) The violation of the right to equality and non-discrimination recognized in Articles 1(1) and 24 of the Convention to the detriment of Carlos Alejandro Tumbeiro. d) The need to grant measures of reparation in keeping with the requests presented by the Commission and the representatives for: (i) pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage to the victims; (ii) measures of satisfaction, and (iii) guarantees of nonrepetition with a transformative purpose. 20. The Court finds that the total acknowledgement of international responsibility makes a positive contribution to the development of these proceedings and the observance of the principles that inspire the Convention, as well as to the victims’ needs for reparation. 19 The acknowledgement made by the State has full legal effects pursuant to above-mentioned Articles 62 and 64 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, and has significant symbolic value to ensure that similar facts are not repeated. Owing to the comprehensive acknowledgement made by the State, the Court considers that the legal dispute in this case has ceased with regard to the facts, the relevant law, and the need to adopt measures of reparation. 21. In this case, based on the violations acknowledged by the State and the requests of the parties and the Commission, the Court considers it necessary to deliver a judgment in which it determines the facts that occurred based on the evidence provided in the proceedings before it. This will contribute to making reparation to the victims, to avoiding a repetition of similar facts and, in short, to the purposes of the inter-American human rights jurisdiction.20 In particular, the Court considers it necessary to analyze the scope of the State’s international responsibility owing to the actions of the police in the context of the illegal and arbitrary 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, and Case of Noguera et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 9, 2020. Series C No. 401, para. 21. 18 Cf. Case of Benavides Cevallos v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 19, 1998. Series C No. 38, para. 57, and Case of Noguera et al. v. Paraguay, supra, para. 27. 19 Cf. Case of Tu Tojin v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2008. Series C No. 190, para. 26, and Case of Women Victims of Sexual Torture in Atenco v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2018. Series C No. 371, para. 41. 20 8