consequences; (b) in particular, only a specific unilateral act of acknowledgement of facts or a clear declaration of responsibility in the context of the said proceedings, regarding which the Commission or the representatives have taken action and that, consequently, have given rise to legal consequences, implicates the State in this regard and, consequently, can be contested in the proceedings before the Court; (c) the State had never changed its position with regard to the case, so that the fact of complying with obligations acquired in the international sphere and that are based on the Ecuadorian Constitution, does not give rise to estoppel, because the arguments used by the State concerning the failure to exhaust domestic remedies had never been contested. On these grounds, the State disputed the existence of a supposed violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. 85. The Commission did not refer to this matter. C. Considerations of the Court 86. The Court takes note that the State and the presumed victims signed an Agreement in order to comply with the Commission’s recommendations. Also, it should be pointed out that the State, pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement, subsequently indicated that it acknowledged its international responsibility on two occasions: (a) when publishing a public apology in a newspaper with widespread circulation on January 25, 2012, after the issue of the Merits Report (supra para. 80), and (b) when installing a plaque in the Provincial Court of Justice of Guayas on August 3, 2012 (supra para. 82). These acts clearly reveal the State’s intention to accept its responsibility publicly for the violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. Furthermore, the Court finds it particularly relevant that the plaque was installed in the Provincial Court of Justice of Guayas after the case had been notified to the State, and even after the representatives’ brief with pleadings, motions and evidence had been forwarded to it (supra para. 4 and 5) and when the State was aware that the Court was examining the case. 87. In this regard, the Court considers that the said acceptance of responsibility by the State is not the same as the acknowledgement established in Article 62 of the Rules of Procedure; 127 in other words, it did not take place during the proceedings before the Court, the State has not directly communicated it to the Court or advised the Court about it, and it does not consist in an explicit acknowledgement by the State of the facts of the case, or a unilateral acquiescence to the claims made in the proceedings. 88. Based on the foregoing, this Court takes note of the partial public acceptance of responsibility made by the State. However, in its answering brief, the State contested the violations that it had previously accepted publicly and its international responsibility in this regard. Consequently, based on its contentious jurisdiction, the Court finds it necessary to rule on the dispute and set out its considerations on the violations of the American Convention that have been alleged by the Commission and by the representative of the presumed victims. 127 “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 legal effects.” 26