11 American Commission. In the friendly settlement executed by the parties on that day, the State acknowledged that “it violated the following articles of the American Convention in detriment of the victims in the instant case, to wit: 1(1), 2, 4, 5, 6, and 25; it further acknowledged that as a consequence thereof, delay and denial of justice existed regarding the determination of the circumstances, the facts, the persons who died and those responsible for this case.” However, after four years of negotiations, on May 18, 2004, the State filed a brief before the Inter-American Commission by means of which it “denied and rejected such friendly settlement executed on March 3, 2000, alleging that it could not be enforceable against the State.” 48. At the moment of rendering the report regarding the Admissibility and Merits (supra para. 8), the Inter-American Commission analyzed the attitude of the State regarding the friendly settlement executed on March 3, 2000, and considered that such attitude “was contradictory in view of the prior conduct of the State and further stated that the same disregarded the efforts that the Commission had made for years in furtherance of its conciliatory aim.” Furthermore, the Commission considered that the State had “acknowledged the truth of the facts occurred at the Detention Center of Catia and its responsibility in several opportunities during the pendency of the instant case.” 49. Pursuant to its prior decisions, this Court considers that, according to the doctrine of estoppel, a State that has adopted a certain position generating legal effects, cannot subsequently assume a different position which contradicts and changes the state of the situation relied upon by the other party.4 The failure of the State to acknowledge the friendly settlement previously agreed upon between the State and the petitioners on March 3, 2000, and to recognize the acknowledgement of international liability for the violations alleged during the pendency of the case before the Commission, which acknowledgement was included in the said settlement, coupled with other statements made by the State, could not be enforced due to the application of the doctrine of estoppel. Therefore, the acknowledgement of responsibility will have full legal force and effect. i) Regarding the preliminary objection filed by the State 50. Upon acknowledgement of the responsibility in the instant case, the State has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court to hear the case5, and has impliedly waived its preliminary objection (supra para. 16). ii) 4 Acknowledgement by the State regarding the facts Cf. Case of Acevedo-Jaramillo et al, supra note 3, para. 176; Case of the Moiwana Community. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, para. 58; Case of Huilca Tecse. Judgment of March 3, 2005. Series C No. 121, para. 56. 5 Cf. Case of Acevedo-Jaramillo et al, supra note 3, para. 126, and Case of the ¨Mapiripán Massacre¨. Preliminary objections and acknowledgement of responsibility. Judgment of March 7, 2005. Series C No. 122, para. 3.