7 a) Legal consequences of the “amended application” filed by the Commission 35. In the instant case, the Commission filed with the Court an “amended application” three weeks after filing the original application pursuant to Article 51(1) of the Convention and Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission, before notice thereof was served by the Court upon the parties. The “amended application” restricted the original claims submitted by the Commission. The Court notified both applications to the State and the representatives, who were given the opportunity to file their comments thereon (supra paras. 17, 19 and 20). 36. On October 28, 2005, the State requested that “the State’s unconditional acquiescence in the [amended] application filed by the Commission” on April 22, 2005, be deemed duly submitted. The State made no challenge in that brief to the “amended application” filed by the Commission; instead it acquiesced in the claims brought by the Commission through said application (supra para. 20). 37. As in other opportunities, the Court considers that its rulings should cater for a fair balance between the protection of human rights -ultimate goal of the systemand legal certainty and procedural equality as a means to guarantee the stability and reliability of the international protection system allowing to reach said goal. 38. In the instant case, the Commission filed an “amended application” before notice of the original application was served in order to limit the scope of the application to alleged violations occurred after March 26, 1993, when the State accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court. The filing of the “amended application” did not impair the right of defense of the State nor did it preclude the exercise of any other right set forth in the Convention.2 39. Based on the foregoing and considering that the State acquiesced in the application filed by the Commission on April 22, 2005, the Court will not further on the analysis thereof and finds that said application reflects the claims of the Commission for the purposes of the instant case. b) Scope of the State’s acknowledgment of international liability 40. As indicated above (supra paras. 20 and 36), the State requested the Court to accept its acknowledgment of international liability for the purposes of the instant case. The Court will analyze the scope of said acknowledgment. 41. Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure provides as follows: [i]f the respondent informs the Court of its acquiescence to the claims of the party that has brought the case as well as the to claims of the representatives of the alleged victims, their next of kin or representatives, the Court, after hearing the opinions of the other parties to the case, shall decide whether such acquiescence and its juridical effects are acceptable. In that event, the Court shall determine the appropriate reparations and indemnities. 2 59. Cf. Case of Cayara. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of February 3, 1993. Series C No. 14, para.