14. Deliberation of the case. The Court began the deliberation of the judgment on October 10, 2019. III JURTISDICTION 15. The Inter-American Court has jurisdiction to hear this case, pursuant to Article 62(3) of the American Convention, as Guatemala has been a State Party to the American Convention since May 25, 1978 and recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on March 9, 1987. IV PARTIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY 16. The Court will examine, according to the State’s partial acknowledgment of international responsibility, the following: (A) the alleged omission of the duty to investigate acts of torture, and (B) the need to amend article 201 bis of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Guatemala (hereinafter “Criminal Code”) that defines the crime of torture. 17. Previously, the Court recalls that in accordance with Articles 62 and 64 of the Rules of Procedure, and in the exercise of its powers of international judicial protection of human rights as a matter of international public order, it is incumbent on this Court to ensure that acts of acknowledgment of responsibility are acceptable for the aims pursued by the inter-American system. This task is not limited to verifying, registering or taking note of the acknowledgment made or its formal conditions, but must confront them with the nature and seriousness of the alleged violations, the demands and interests of justice, the particular circumstances of the case in question, and the attitude and position of the parties,9 in such a way that it can specify, as far as possible and in the exercise of its jurisdiction, the judicial truth of the events. 10 The Court warns that the recognition of single, specific facts and violations may have effects and consequences in the analysis that this Court makes of the other alleged facts and violations, to the extent that they all form part of the same set of circumstances.11 18. This Court considers that the partial acknowledgment of international responsibility constitutes a positive contribution to the development of this process and to the validity of the principles that inspire the Convention, 12 as well as to the victims’ need for reparation.13 A. Partial acknowledgment of responsibility by the State regarding the alleged omission of the duty to investigate acts of torture 9 Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008. Series C No. 177, para. 24, and Case of Órdenes Guerra et al. v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2018. Series C No. 372, para. 25. 10 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 Omeara Carrascal et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2018. Series C No. 368, para. 28. 11 Cf. Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (The Disappeared from the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 14, 2014. Series C No. 287, para. 27, 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. 40. 12 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 Órdenes Guerra et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 25. 13 Cf. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra, para. 18, and Case of Órdenes Guerra et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 25. 7