allegation of the existence of massive and systematic violations in Argentina, and their claims for reparations and the beneficiaries thereof. (supra para. 5) 36. The Tribunal therefore finds that the State acknowledged the totality of the facts presented by the Commission, that is, those related to Mr. Torres's detentions carried out in September and October 2003, his enforced disappearance as of October 2003, the lack of due diligence in the investigation into the facts, and the suffering caused to some of Mr. Torres's family members. However, the State did not accept all the facts alleged by the representatives, such as other detentions not mentioned in the Merits Report as having occurred to Mr. Torres, and alleged abuses suffered by other persons that were not identified as victims in the Report on the merits. Likewise, the State did not acquiesce to the totality of the Commission’s allegations of law, nor to those of the representatives, nor to the identification of the victims, “family members,” or beneficiaries, nor to the representatives’ pleadings on reparations. The dispute therefore continues in regards to the violation of Article 1(b) of the Convention on Forced Disappearance alleged by the Commission in its application; the violation of Articles 1(1), 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 19, 25, and 26 of the American Convention, 1, 2, 6, and 8 of the Convention against Torture, III of the Convention on Forced Disappearance, and the “Protocol of San Salvador” as alleged by the representatives; the identification of Evelyn Paola Caba, Ivana Valeria Torres, and Romina Marcela Torres as alleged victims; and regarding all of the representatives' claims for reparations. For this reason, the Court qualifies as partial the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility. 37. The Court deems that the State’s acquiescence to responsibility, as Argentina has done in other Cases before the Court, 12 constitutes a positive contribution to the development these proceedings and a reinforcement of the principles that inspire the American Convention. 13 Furthermore, the Court considers, as in other cases, 14 that this acquiescence has full legal effect as stipulated in Articles 62 and 64 of the Rules of the Court, and that it has a high symbolic value in the interest of keeping similar violations from happening again. However, it is necessary to specify the scope of the acquiescence, and under that framework, rule on the disputes that persist. Consequently, based on its attributes, which require it to ensure the greatest protection of human rights, the Court shall deliver a Judgment in which it establishes the facts and determines the merits of the case, as well as their corresponding consequences.15 VI EVIDENCE 38. Based on Articles 46, 50, and 58 of its Rules of Procedure, as well as on its jurisprudence related to evidence and the examination thereof, 16 the Court will examine 12 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria V. Argentina. Merits. Judgment of February 2, 1996. Series C No. 26; Case of Bulacio V. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100; Case of Bueno Alves V. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 164, and Case of Kimel V. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008 Series C No. 177. 13 Cf. Case of Trujillo Oroza V. Bolivia. Merits. Judgment of Janury 26, 2000. Series C No. 64, para. 42; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña V. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2010. Series C No. 217, para. 37, and Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. V. Perú. Merits Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 4, 2011. Series C No. 223, para. 26. 14 Cf. Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al. V. Perú. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 7, 2006. Series C No. 144, paras. 176 to 180; Case of Kimel V. Argentina, supra note 13, paras. 23 to 25, and Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. V. Perú, supra note 14, para. 26. 15 Cf. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre V. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 69; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña V. Bolivia, supra note 14, para. 30, and Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. V. Perú, supra note 14, para. 27. 16 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) V. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76, para. 50; Case of Vera Vera et al. V. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 19, 2011. Series C No. 224, para. 19, and Case of Mejía Idrovo V. 11