peoples, this guarantee of possession is a fundamental part of the right to collective ownership. Nevertheless, the representatives considered that the State [had] acknowledged the fact that it had failed to free the land of encumbrances as required in order to ensure the peaceful possession of the territory recognized to [the community].” B. Considerations of the Court 43. According to Articles 62 and 64 of the Rules of Procedure, and in the exercise of its powers for the international protection of human rights, a matter that transcends the intentions of the parties, 23 the Court must ensure that acts of acquiescence are acceptable for the purposes of the inter-American system for the protection of human rights. In this task, it is not restricted to merely confirming, recording or taking note of the acknowledgement made by the State, or to verifying the formal conditions of such acts, but it must also relate them to the nature and severity of the violations that have been alleged, the demands and interests of justice, the particular circumstances of the specific case, and the attitude and position of the parties, in order to clarify, insofar as possible and in the exercise of its jurisdiction, the truth of what happened. 24 Thus, an acknowledgement cannot limit, either directly or indirectly, the exercise of the Court’s authority to hear the case that has been submitted to it, and to decide whether there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by the Convention. 25 44. As to the acknowledgment of facts, the Court notes that, in its answering brief, the State asserted that it had granted two full property titles to the Punta Piedra Garifuna community: the first for an area of 800.64 hectares and the second for an area of 1,513.54 hectares. However, it acknowledged that it had failed to free the land granted to the community of encumbrances, because the inhabitants of the village of Rio Miel possessed part of it. However, the State was inconsistent in its references to the area of territory that was occupied by third parties because, first, it indicated that 600 hectares were occupied and then that only 3.48 hectares were occupied (supra paras. 36 and 38). 45. In this regard, the Court finds that this acknowledgment of facts produces full legal effects pursuant to Articles 62 and 64 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. However, although the conflict involving these facts has been partially resolved, as well as the failure to free the land of encumbrances, considering that the State has rejected the other facts of the case, the Court finds it pertinent to make a comprehensive and detailed determination of those facts, bearing in mind those that have been acknowledged, because this will contribute to making reparation to the victims and to preventing the repetition of similar facts. 26 46. Regarding the possible acknowledgment of the violation of rights, the State accepted that “it fail[ed] to guarantee [the] peaceful possession [of the community’s territory] by freeing the land of encumbrances” (supra para. 37) and that “when Cf. Case of Huilca Tecse v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 3, 2005. Series C No. 121, para. 42, and Case of Gonzales Lluy et al., supra, para. 49. 24 Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008. Series C No. 177, para. 24, and Case of Gonzales Lluy et al., supra, para. 49. 25 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 105, and Case of Gonzales Lluy et al., supra, para. 49. 26 Cf. Case of Myma Mack Chang, supra, para. 116 and Case of Rodriguez Vera et al. (Disappeared from the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 14, 2014. Series C No. 287, para. 33. 23 15