19. The Commission expressed its satisfaction for the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility and for the willingness of the parties to enter into the Agreement. In this regard, it observed that “the dispute about the facts, the violations, the family members acknowledged to be victims, and the correlative existence of an obligation to make reparation to those family members, has ceased.” Despite this, it considered that it was “necessary to deliver a detailed judgment, […] to respond to the objectives of interAmerican justice; specifically, the reparatory effects for the family of Jorge Omar Gutiérrez and the judicial clarification of the violations that occurred; but also because the parties and the Commission have agreed to request the Court to make a ruling that facilitates the effective implementation of the reparations.” In this regard, it indicated that “[the] appropriate determination of the facts and their legal characterization was inextricably related to the implications of the obligation to investigate and punish those responsible, and to halt the impunity in the very particular procedural circumstances of the investigation at the domestic level.” It also underscored that the Agreement “includes a general clause on the application of Article 63(1) of the American Convention,” therefore, “it does not exclude other measures of non-repetition or of satisfaction that the Court may order in the exercise of its competence and in accordance with the inter-American standards in this regard.” 20. The representatives appreciated the acknowledgement of responsibility made by the State. Nevertheless, they indicated that there were no arguments in their pleadings and motions brief that attempted to assimilate the facts of the case to situations of a systematic nature, but rather they had referred to “institutional structural deficiencies (in the provincial system of justice and in the functioning of the police forces involved) that facilitated the irregularities and intrigues that permitted, established and perpetuated up until today, the corporate concealment and impunity of the murder committed by State agents involved in a criminal network.” On this point, they argued that “[w]hat the State is seeking to ignore is precisely this dimension of the case, directly related to the alleged violations and the measures of non-repetition requested.” They also differed from the State’s position in the sense that “measures aimed at reversing certain elements – even though the latter are the result of normative limitations or institutional practices that require wide-ranging measures – cannot be ordered in a […] specific case being litigated.” In addition, the representatives reiterated their pecuniary claims and stated that they were “convinced of the validity of [their] demands.” Also, in their final written arguments, the representatives emphasized that the parties had signed the Agreement in the understanding that, thereby, they would contribute to the work of the Court by identifying measures “that should be adopted on the path towards integral reparation”; in other words, “the Agreement does not seek to be exhaustive as regards the reparations that have been determined in the case.” Consequently, and with reference to Article 63 of the Convention, in the said Agreement the parties indicated “their intention that the Court establish, in addition to the measures already agreed on, [the] reparations that it considers pertinent.” B. Considerations of the Court 21. In accordance with Articles 62 to 64 of the Rules of Procedure 5 and in exercise of its powers concerning the international judicial protection of human rights, a matter that goes 5 Articles 62, 63 and 64 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court stipulate: Article 62. Acquiescence 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. 10