27. The Court also observes that there is still a dispute regarding the facts and claims relating to the alleged violations of Article 13 of the Convention, the right to know the truth, Article II of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance, and regarding the alleged violations of Articles 19 and 22, to the detriment of certain next of kin of the disappeared victims. Likewise, there is still dispute regarding the alleged violation of the obligation to guarantee the rights of the 26 disappeared victims by investigating the facts and the alleged violations of Articles 5 and 17 to the detriment of the next of kin of Rudy Gustavo Figueroa Muñoz and Wendy Santizo Méndez, and of Article 16 to the detriment of Rudy Gustavo Figueroa Muñoz. The dispute also remains in relation to the determination of the eventual reparations, costs and expenses. Accordingly, the Court will determine, in the corresponding chapter, the measures of reparation that are appropriate in this case, bearing in mind the requests of the representatives and the Commission, the relevant standards of the inter-American system for the protection of human rights, and the respective observations of the State. 28. In the instant case, the Court finds that the partial acknowledgement of responsibility made by the State, as well as the latter’s commitment to expedite or negotiate compliance with some of the measures of reparation requested, make a positive contribution to the development of these proceedings and to the implementation of the principles that inspire the American Convention,23 as well as to satisfying the needs for reparation of the victims of human rights violations.24 Furthermore, the Court considers, as it has in other cases,25 that the State’s acknowledgement produces full legal effects pursuant to the above-mentioned Articles 62 and 64 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, and has considerable symbolic value to ensure the non-repetition of similar facts. 29. Lastly, based on the seriousness of the alleged facts and violations, and taking into account the powers vested in this Court as an international organ for the protection of human rights, the Court will proceed to make an extensive and detailed determination of the facts that occurred, because this contributes to making reparation to the victims, to preventing the repetition of similar facts and, in brief, to satisfying the purposes of the inter-American human rights jurisdiction.26 The Court will include the corresponding chapters to analyze and clarify, as appropriate, the scope of the violations alleged by the Commission and the representatives, as well as the corresponding consequences with regard to reparations. IV COMPETENCE 30. The Inter-American Court is competent to hear this case in the terms of Article 62(3) of the American Convention, because Guatemala has been a State Party to the American Convention since May 25, 1978, and recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on March 9, 1987. In addition, Guatemala ratified the Inter-American Convention against 23 Cf. Case of El Caracazo v. Venezuela. Merits. Judgment of November 11, 1999. Series C No. 58, para. 43, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, supra, para. 28. 24 Cf. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra, para. 18, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, supra, para. 28. 25 Cf. inter alia, Case of Torres Millacura et al. v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 26, 2011. Series C No. 229, para. 37, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and family members v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 3, 2012. Series C No. 248, para. 21. 26 Cf. Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2008. Series C No. 190, para. 26, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, supra, para. 27. - 14 -