8 42. The Inter-American Court, exercising its contentious jurisdiction, applies and interprets the American Convention, and when a case is submitted to its jurisdiction, the Court has the power and authority to determine the international responsibility of a State Party to the Convention for any violations to the provisions of the same,3 provided said State has accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court. 43. The Court, exercising its powers of international judicial protection of human rights, may determine whether an acknowledgment of international responsibility made by a State provides sufficient ground, under the terms of the American Convention, to proceed with the consideration of the merits of the case and the determination of possible reparations. To that effect, the Court must analyze the particular circumstances of each case.4 44. The State filed its answer to the application and requested that the “State’s unconditional acquiescence in the [amended] application filed by the Commission be deemed duly submitted” (supra para. 20). Later, the State filed a clarification on the scope of its acknowledgment of liability regarding the claims brought by the representatives in the brief of requests and arguments, which had not been raised by the Commission in the application. The State indicated that, “[t]he State of Paraguay undertakes to comply with the decisions of the [...] Court as regards to the claims of the representatives of the victims, to their fullest extent” (supra para. 21). 45. The Commission and the representatives filed their comments on the scope of the State’s acknowledgment of liability (supra para. 22). Both the Commission and the representatives indicated in their respective briefs that the State’s acknowledgment did not cover the claims brought by the representatives, which differ from the claims raised in the application filed by the Commission, in relation to the alleged violation of Articles 19 (Rights of the Child) and 5(1) (Right to Personal Integrity) of said treaty in relation to Article 1(1) of said treaty and Articles 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. 46. At the public hearing held on March 30, 2006 (supra para. 30), the State restated its acquiescence in the application filed by the Commission and also asked for “forgiveness” to the Vargas-Areco family in their mother tongue (Guarani). The State requested Sebastián Vargas-Areco, the only member of the Vargas-Areco family present at the public hearing, “to communicate to his mother the request for forgiveness made by the State, which not only understands the situation and asks for forgiveness but also undertakes to accept any reparations deemed necessary.”5 Furthermore, at the public hearing, the State indicated that “the filing of a simple and straightforward acknowledgment of liability had deleted any controversy as to the merits of the case, particularly regarding the events.” Moreover, the State mentioned that “the alleged violations of the rights set forth in Articles 19 and 5(1) of the American Convention[, and Articles] 6 and 8 [of the Inter-American Cf. Case of Ximenes-Lopes. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149, para. 61; Case of the Ituango Massacres. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 57; and Case of Baldeón-García, Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 37. 3 Cf. Case of Montero-Aranguren et al. (Detention Center of Catia). Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, para. 39; Case of Ximenes-Lopes, supra note 3, para. 62; and Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 3, para. 58. 4 Transcription of the public hearing held on the Case of Vargas-Areco on March 30, 2006, in the City of Brasilia, Brazil. 5