12 failure to adopt measures to protect the minor Vargas-Areco, pursuant to the provisions of Article 19 of the Convention, cannot be considered a continuous or permanent violation, whose perpetration extended until March 26, 1993, when the State recognized the jurisdiction of the Court. The alleged violation of the rights set forth in Article 19 of the Convention was perfected upon the death of the minor Vargas-Areco. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that no events occurred subsequent to the date of recognition of jurisdiction that the Court may consider to justify a violation of the rights set forth in Article 19 of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1), 2 and 7 of said treaty, to the detriment of the minor Vargas-Areco. iii) Acknowledgement as to the claims for reparations 64. The Court considers that the acknowledgment by the State of the events and claims in the instant case purports certain legal consequences regarding reparations. To that respect, the Court resorts to a statement repeatedly upheld in its precedents in the sense that when an illegal act attributable to a State is committed, international liability is immediately imposed upon the State for violation of the international provision involved, and therefore the State has the duty to repair and make the consequences of said violation cease.8 The Court will rule on reparations in chapter ten of this Judgment. * * * 65. The acknowledgment of liability made by the State purports acquiescence in the events and claims, representing a very important step in the development of proceedings and a step towards the enforcement of the principles consecrated in the American Convention.9 In the instant case, the Court takes into account particularly the manner in which the State expressed its acknowledgment at the public hearing; i.e. through a request for forgiveness addressed to the family of Gerardo VargasAreco (supra para. 46). 66. However, taking into account the responsibility the Court has as international human right protection body and in view of its precedents, the Court considers that rendering judgment determining the truth of the facts acknowledged by the State and their consequences would amount to a form of reparation for the relatives of Gerardo Vargas-Areco, who were in turn victims of certain violations, and would contribute to prevent similar events from happening again.10 67. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the Judgment should include the testimonies of witnesses and expert witnesses (infra para. 69). Cf. Case of Montero-Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia), supra note 4, para. 116; Case of Ximenes-Lopes, supra note 3, para. 208; and Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 3, para. 346. 8 Cf. Case of Montero-Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia), supra note 4, para. 57; and Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 3, para. 79; and Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 3, para. 55. 9 Cf. Case of Montero-Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia), supra note 4, para. 58; and Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 3, para. 80; and Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 3, para. 56. 10