7 of the aspects regarding the alleged violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention to the detriment of Hugo Ticona (infra para. 90). 19. In addition, the representative expressed its great pleasure as to the acknowledgment of responsibility made by the State regarding the facts and rights denounced before the Inter-American system for the protection of human rights, which it repeated during the public hearing. Nevertheless, the representative pointed out that there are still certain aspects in dispute regarding the compliance with the recommendations made by the Inter-American Commission. 20. Under the provisions of Articles 53(2) and 55 of the Rules of Procedure, in the exercise of its inherent power of international legal protection of human Rights, the Court may determine if an acknowledgment of international responsibility made by a respondent government, offers a sufficient ground in the terms of the American Convention, to continue or not with the determination of the merits, reparations, and costs8. 21. In this sense, the Court notes that the expression “whether such acquiescence and its juridical effects are acceptable” as well as the entire text of Article 55 of the Rules of Procedure show that these acts are not, in themselves, binding on the Court. Since proceedings brought before the Court seek the protection of human rights, a matter of international public order which goes beyond the will of the parties, the Court must ensure that such acts are acceptable for the purposes sought by the Inter-American System. In doing so, the Court must not only verify the formal conditions of said acts, but also examine them in relation to the nature and seriousness of the alleged violations, the requirements and interests of justice, the specific circumstances surrounding a particular case, and the attitude and position of the parties9. 22. As to the facts, the Court notes that the State admitted the facts put forward in the application by the Commission. Nevertheless, in the final arguments, the State made it clear that the human rights violations regarding the alleged torture that Hugo Ticona would have suffered or the facts related to that situation fall outside the acknowledgement of international responsibility (supra para. 15). Based on the foregoing, the Court declares that there is no more disputed facts at issue but there 8 Article 53. Discontinuance of a case. […] 2. If the respondent informs the Court of its acquiescence to the claims of the party that has brought the case as well as to the claims of the representatives of the alleged victims, their next of kin or representatives, the Court, after hearing the opinions of the other parties to the case, shall decide whether such acquiescence and its juridical effects are acceptable. In that event, the Court shall determine the appropriate reparations and indemnities. Article 55. Continuance of a case. The Court may, notwithstanding the existence of the conditions indicated in the preceding paragraphs, and bearing in mind its responsibility to protect human rights, decide to continue the consideration of a case. 9 Cfr. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C Nº 101, para. 105; Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C Nº 148, para. 58; and Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008. Series C Nº 177, para. 24.