25 105. Second, the Court, exercising its inherent authority of international protection of human rights, can establish whether an acknowledgment of international responsibility by a respondent State offers sufficient basis, in terms of the American Convention, to proceed or not with its hearing on the merits and establishment of possible reparations. To this end, the Court will analyze what has been stated in the specific case. 106. Article 52 of the Rules of Procedure refers to a situation in which a respondent State informs the Court of its acquiescence regarding the facts and the claims of the applicant party and, therefore, accepts its international responsibility for breaching the convention, in the terms set forth in the application, a situation that would give rise to early termination of the proceeding regarding the merits of the matter, as set forth in chapter V of the Rules of Procedure. The Court notes that with the provisions of the Rules of Procedure that entered into force on June 1, 2001, the application brief includes the considerations regarding the facts and the points of law as well as the claims regarding the merits of the matter and the requests for the respective reparations and legal costs. In this regard, when a State acquiesces to the application, it must clearly state whether it does so only regarding the merits of the matter, or whether it also includes reparations and legal costs. If the acquiescence refers only to the merits of the matter, the Court will consider whether it will continue with the procedural stage of determining reparations and legal costs. 107. In light of the evolution of the system for the protection of human rights, where the alleged victims or their next of kin can today autonomously submit their brief with requests, pleadings, and evidence, and wield claims that may or may not coincide with those of the Commission, when there is an acquiescence it must clearly state whether the claims made by the alleged victims or their next of kin are also accepted. 108. On the other hand, the Rules of Procedure of the Court do not establish any specific moment for the respondent party to state its acquiescence. Therefore, if a State resorts to this procedural act at any stage of the proceeding, this Court, after hearing all the parties, must evaluate and decide its scope in each specific case. 109. The State has submitted several briefs with the intention of defining the scope of its recognition of international responsibility. This Court specifically notes that on March 3, 2003, at the seat of the Court, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Guatemala gave to the President of the Court a brief in which he clarified the terms of the acquiescence of the Guatemalan State in terms of “unconditionally accepting international responsibility in the Myrna Mack Chang case” and he apologized for the problem caused by “the mistake regarding the acknowledgment of responsibility of the State” (supra paras. 48 and 94). 110. The Commission and the representatives of the next of kin of the victim, in turn, have at all times objected to acceptance of the acquiescence by the State and have asked this Court to establish the facts and the violations to the American Convention. Among other expressions, they have asked the Court to rule on the scope and the effects of the acquiescence (supra paras. 76, 77, 83, 84, 92, 93 and 97 to 100). 111. The Court, taking into account the authority granted to it by Article 52(2) of its Rules of Procedure, takes note of the total and unconditional acquiescence of the respondent State (supra para. 94), which encompasses all the facts stated in the application; exercising that same authority under its Rules of Procedure, the Court