mechanism to identify the executed victims, the next of kin and the survivors, in coordination with, and to supplement the measures already taken by, the representatives, “[b]ecause the reparations are closely linked to the identification of victims.” 22. The representatives acknowledged the State’s good intentions when acknowledging responsibility in this case and submitted the following observations: (i) although the State had indicated that it understood that the limitation presented when accepting the Court’s jurisdiction “is not liable to exception or operative in this case,” it was unclear whether it accepted the Court’s competence to rule on all the facts of the case; nevertheless, in their final arguments brief, they considered that, based on the State’s attitude during the procedural stages of this case, the Court could rule on all the facts and, consequently, all the alleged violations; (ii) despite the wide-ranging acknowledgement of the facts, “the State did not make specific mention of the human rights violations for which it acknowledged responsibility,” and “[n]or did it indicate who it recognized as victims in the case”; (iii) although the State has expressed itself favorably with regard to the implementation of some of the measures requested, in some cases “it has only done so in relation to some aspects of the measures, and in others without specifying what their true scope would be,” and (iv) regarding the facts related to the enforced displacements, destruction of property, and the context of violence in which these events took place, they considered that, even if it is of a general nature, the Court should be taken into account the information contained in the pleadings and arguments brief in order to assess how the enforced displacement affected victims of the massacres. In addition, the representatives considered it essential that the Court deliver a judgment in this case in which it determined the facts together with the violations to which they gave rise, owing to the reparative nature of this action, because it would contribute to the preservation of the historical memory, to prevent a recurrence of similar events, and to satisfy the objectives of the inter-American jurisdiction, which is particularly important in this case “in which, for years, the facts were denied by the authorities and the perpetrators of these facts are still today treated as heroes.” In addition, they appreciated the willingness expressed by the State with regard to reparations. They also indicated that the ruling of this Court “is fundamental to ensure that the State […] complies with its obligation to adapt its domestic law in order to remove the obstacles that, for years, have prevented the victims of grave human rights violations during the armed conflict from obtaining justice.” 23. In keeping with Articles 62 and 64 of the Rules of Procedure, 11 and in exercise of its powers for the international judicial protection of human rights, an issue of international public order that exceeds the will of the parties, the Court must ensure that acts of acquiescence are acceptable for the purposes sought by the inter-American system. In this task, it is not limited merely to verifying, recording or taking note of the acknowledgment made by the State, or to verifying the formal conditions of the said acts, but must relate them to the nature and severity of the alleged violations, the requirements and interests of justice, the particular circumstances 11 Articles 62 and 64 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure establish: Article 62. Acquiescence Si 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 the brief submitted by the alleged 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 La Corte, 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. 10