5 10. Therefore, in defense of the guarantee of the supremacy of Human Rights, particularly when degraded by crimes against humanity, it becomes necessary to recognize the importance of said international judgment and to immediately incorporate it into the domestic body of laws, to allow for investigation, prosecution, and punishment those crimes, which were then, protected by an interpretation of the Amnesty Law, which as an end result, is a Law that generates impunity, lack of trust regarding protection from the State, and a eternally opened social wound, needing to be healed by the calm and more incisive application of Law and Justice. VI. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY BY THE STATE 11. The Court, by law, rules on the acknowledgment of international responsibility effectuated by the State. 12. Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure establishes that “if the respondent were to inform the Court of its unlawful actions to the claims of the plaintiff and to those of the representatives of the alleged victims, its next of kin or representatives, the Court, having heard the views of the parties in the case, will decide on the sources of the acquiescence and its legal effects.” 13. Therefore, the Court, in exercising its inherent powers of international judicial protection of human rights, may establish its free conviction on whether the recognition of international responsibility by a State provides sufficient substance in the terms of the Convention, in order to monitor or not the merits and the determination of reparations and costs. For that, the Court must analyze the situation presented in individual cases.422 14. In this case, the Brazilian state, throughout the proceedings before the Inter-American Human Rights System, did not dispute liability for the acts regarding the arbitrary and illegal detention, torture, and enforced disappearance, along the lines proposed by the Law No. 9140, to December 4, 1995.423 On the contrary, in its answer to the final written arguments of the representatives of November 2006, in the proceedings before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, the State acknowledged “[the] feeling of anxiety of the next of kin of the disappeared persons of the Guerrilha do Araguaia, believing in the supreme right of all individuals to the opportunity to mourn their dead, a ritual which includes the burial of their remains.”424 15. In the book-report of the Special Commission on Political Deaths and Disappearances of Persons – CEMDP425 the State recognized that the Law No. 422 IA Court of HR. Case of Montero Aranguren et al. vs. Venezuela. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C N° 150, para. 39; Case of Baldéon García. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C N° 147. para. 38; Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al. Judgment of February 7, 2006. Series C N° 144, para. 173; and Case of Blanco Romero et al. Judgment of November 28, 2005. Series C N° 138, para. 55. 423 Application of the IACHR, para. 41. Preamble of Law No. 9.140/95 establishes that the law, among others, “recognizes as deceased persons those that were disappeared due to their participation, or accusal of participation, in political activities, in the period of September 2, 1961 to August 15, 1979.” 424 Observations of the State of May 2007, para. 10. Appendix III of the Application of the IACHR. 425 Created by Law No. 9.140/95.