regard to Rudy Gustavo Figueroa Muñoz and Wendy Santizo Méndez “is unclear,” as well as being “erroneous,” because it disregards the obligation of guarantee imposed by the respective articles of the Convention; (iii) the acquiescence to the violations of Articles 5 and 17 “does not reflect all the reasons” based on which the violations are alleged; (iv) the measures indicated by the State to support its partial acquiescence to the violation of access to information, “are patently insufficient,” and, in general, the State’s acquiescence “does not address all [their] allegations,” because it does not refer to the alleged violations of Articles 5, 13, 16 and 17 of the Convention, to the detriment of the next of kin of Rudy Gustavo Figueroa Muñoz and Wendy Santizo Méndez, or to the alleged violation of the obligation to guarantee the rights established in Articles 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the Convention in relation to the 26 disappeared victims. In addition, they indicated that the State’s acquiescence “includes the obligation to make reparation as an aspect to be negotiated, instead of an obligation arising from the violations acknowledged,” and expressed their opposition to the State’s request to decrease the compensation. Based on the foregoing, the representatives asked, inter alia, that the Court deliver a judgment in which it refers in detail to all the facts and elements of the merits, as well as the reparations. Considerations of the Court 20. In accordance with Articles 62 and 64 of the Rules of Procedure, 15 and in exercise of its powers for the international judicial protection of human rights, a matter of international public order that transcends the will of the parties, it is incumbent on the Court to ensure that acts of acquiescence are acceptable for the purposes of the inter-American system. This task is not limited to merely verifying, recording or taking note of the acknowledgment made by the State, or to confirming the formal conditions of the said acts; but rather, it must examine them in relation to the nature and gravity of the alleged violations, the requirements and interest of justice, the particular circumstances of the specific case, and the attitude and position of the parties, 16 so that it can clarify, insofar as possible and in the exercise of its competence, the truth about what took place. 17 21. Article 41(1)(a) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure establishes that the State must indicate in its answering brief whether it accepts the facts and arguments, or whether it contests them. Moreover, paragraph 3 of the same Article 41 of the Rules of Procedure, indicates that “the Court may consider those facts that have not been expressly denied and those claims that have not been expressly contested as accepted.” 22. In this case, the State did not clarify plainly and specifically in its answering brief or in its final written arguments the facts submitted by the Commission in this case, that substantiate its partial acknowledgment of responsibility. However, the Court observes that, during the public hearing, Guatemala indicated that “it accept[ed] the facts” corresponding 15 Articles 62 and 64 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure establish: “Article 62: Acquiescence: If the respondent informs the Court of its acceptance of the facts or its total or partial acquiescence to the claims stated in the presentation of the case or in the brief submitted by the presumed victims or their representatives, the Court shall decide, having heard the opinions of all those participating in the proceedings and at the appropriate procedural moment, whether to accept that acquiescence, and shall rule upon its juridical effects.” “Article 64. Continuation of a case: Bearing in mind its responsibility to protect human rights, the Court may decide to continue the consideration of a case notwithstanding the existence of the conditions indicated in the preceding articles.” 16 Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008. Series C No. 177, para. 24, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 25, 2012. Series C No. 252, para. 23. 17 Cf. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 17, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, supra, para. 23. - 11 -