grounds of the detention, the failure to present the accused promptly before a judge, the lack of prior and detailed notice of the charges, the lack of a legal defense during the first days following detention, which led to a wrongful application of arraigo and of pre-trial detention sua sponte, following the procedures that were appropriate when the events occurred.” It also indicated that “it acknowledges its international responsibility for violating Article 5, read in conjunction with Article 1(1), regarding the personal integrity of the victims, for being held isolated and incommunicado during their detention.” 15. With respect to reparations, the State informed that it had complied with various of the items in the Memorandum regarding reparations and, therefore, it requested that the Court take that into consideration when ordering measures of reparation. 16. The Commission “took note” of the State’s partial acknowledgement of international responsibility in the public hearing and found that it contributed to dignifying the victims and to obtaining justice and reparations.” It stressed, however, that the State’s acknowledgement included “the conclusions on the facts, but not all the conclusions of law set forth in the Merits Report.” The Commission especially emphasized that the State “did not acknowledge the violation of Article 2 on the duty to adopt provisions of domestic law, as well as the measure of reparation regarding legislative modifications.” 17. The representatives “took note of the statement made by the State during the public hearing in which it made a partial acknowledgement of most of the claims of the representatives.” B. Considerations of the Court 18. Pursuant to Articles 62 and 64 of the Rules and in exercise of its powers with regard to the international judicial protection of human rights, a matter of international public order, it is incumbent on the Court to ensure that an acknowledgment of responsibility is in keeping with the objectives that the inter-American system seeks to achieve. 12 The Court will now analyze the specific situation presented in this case. B.1 On the facts 19. The State made a partial acknowledgement of responsibility for violating various articles of the Convention to the detriment of Jorge Marcial Tzompaxtle Tecpile, Gerardo Tzompaxtle Tecpile and Gustavo Robles López, which involved “the detention, the vehicle search, the lack of information on the grounds of the detention, the failure to present them promptly before a judge, the lack of prior and detailed notice of the charges, the lack of a legal defense during the first days following detention.” It added the violation of Article 5, read in conjunction with Article 1(1), regarding the personal integrity of the victims, for being held isolated and incommunicado during their detention. In view of the above, the Court understands that the acknowledgement implies the acceptance of the facts as set forth in the Report on the Merits. 20. Therefore, the Court considers that there is no longer a controversy on the factual basis of this case; in other words, on the following facts: a) the detention and the search of the vehicle in which Jorge Marcial Tzompaxtle Tecpile, Gerardo Tzompaxtle Tecpile and Gustavo Robles López were traveling; b) the lack of information on the grounds for detaining the alleged victims; c) the failure to present the victims promptly before a judge; d) the lack of prior and detailed notification of the charges against the alleged victims; e) the lack of a legal defense during the first days following detention and f) the conditions of isolation and incommuncado to which they were subjected during their detention. 21. A controversy remains with respect to the searches on March 31, 2006 of the home of the mother 12 Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008. Series C No. 177, para. 24 and Case of Deras García et al. v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 25, 2022. Series C No. 462, para. 21. 7