14 made by a defendant State offers sufficient grounds, in the terms of the American Convention, to continue or not with the hearing on merits and the determination of reparations and costs. To this end, the Court examines the situation in each specific case.3 47. In cases heard previously by the Court, where there has been acquiescence and acknowledgement of international responsibility, the Court has established that: […] Article 53[2] of the Rules of Procedure refers to the situation in which the defendant State informs the Court of its acquiescence to the facts and to the claims of the plaintiff and, consequently, accepts its international responsibility for the violation of the Convention, in the terms set out in the application, a situation that would lead to the early termination of the proceedings on merits, as established in Chapter V of the Rules of Procedure. The Court notes that, under the provisions of the Rules of Procedure that entered into force on June 1, 2001, the application brief is composed of the considerations de facto and de jure and also the petitions relating to the merits of the case and the requests for the corresponding reparations and costs. In this regard, when a State acquiesces to the application, it must indicate clearly whether it acquiesces only to the merits of the case or whether its acquiescence also covers reparations and costs. If the acquiescence only refers to the merits of the case, the Court must assess whether to continue on to the procedural stage for the determination of reparations and costs. […] In light of the evolution of the system for the protection of human rights where, nowadays, the alleged victims or their next of kin may present their requests, arguments and evidence brief autonomously and assert claims that coincide or not with those of the Commission, when an acquiescence occurs, the State must clearly indicate whether it also accepts the claims made by the alleged victims or their next of kin.4 i) The State’s acknowledgement of the facts 48. The Court observes that the State acknowledged the facts relating to “the arbitrary and illegal detention and torture of the victim[s] and [their] forced disappearance to date. Also, the State did not contradict the facts relating to the domestic criminal proceedings in relation to the cases concerning the alleged victims. In these broad terms, and in the understanding that the application constitutes the factual framework of the proceedings,5 the Court considers that the dispute has ceased concerning the facts relating to the detention, torture and disappearance of Agustín Goiburú Giménez, Carlos José Mancuello Bareiro, Rodolfo Ramírez Villalba and Benjamín Ramírez Villalba contained in the application. ii) The State’s acquiescence concerning the legal claims 3 Cf. Case of Montero-Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia). Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, para. 33; Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 2, para. 65; and Case of Huilca Tecse. Judgment of March 3, 2005. Series C No. 121, para. 42. 4 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 2, para. 66; Case of Molina Theissen. Judgment of May 4, 2004. Series C No. 106, paras. 41 to 44; and Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre. Judgment of April 29, 2004. Series C No. 105, paras. 43 to 48. 5 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 55; Case of Gómez Palomino. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, para. 59; and Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 2, para. 59.