beyond the will of the parties, 6 it is incumbent on the Court to ensure that acts of acquiescence are acceptable for the objectives that the inter-American system for the protection of human rights seeks to achieve. 7 In this task, it does not merely verify, record, or take note of the acknowledgement made by the State, or verify the formal conditions of the said acts, but it must relate them to the nature and severity of the alleged violations, the requirements and interests of justice, the particular circumstances of the specific case, and the attitude and position of the parties, 8 so that it can clarify, insofar as possible and in the exercise of its competence, the truth of what happened. 9 Thus, the acknowledgement cannot result in a direct or indirect constraint to the exercise of the Court’s competence to hear the case that has been submitted to it, 10 and to decide whether, in this regard, there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by the Convention. 11 22. Regarding the facts of the instant case, the Court notes that, when accepting the conclusions of the Merits Report, the State indicated that “there [was] sufficient evidence to consider that the objective responsibility of the province of Buenos Aires had been constituted” and, consequently, of the national State, and it took into account “the circumstance that there was a high degree of certainty about the possibility that agents of the Argentine Federal Police were involved in the death of [Mr.] Gutiérrez.” In this regard, the Court considers that the acts committed by State agents that generated the international responsibility acknowledged by Argentina have not been determined clearly. Consequently, and particularly considering that the extensive and exact determination of the facts that occurred contributes to providing redress to the victims, to avoiding a repetition of similar events and, in sum, to meeting the objectives of the inter-American jurisdiction on human rights, 12 the Court finds it necessary to establish the facts that Article 63. Friendly settlement When the Commission; the victims or alleged victims, or their representatives; the respondent State; or, if applicable, the petitioning State in a case before the Court inform it of the existence of a friendly settlement, compromise, or any other act appropriate for settling the dispute, the Court shall rule upon its admissibility and juridical effects at the appropriate procedural moment. Article 64. Continuation of a case 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. 6 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 Gudiel Álvarez et al. (Diario Militar) v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2012. Series C No. 253, para. 20. 7 Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008. Series C No. 177, para. 24, and Case of García and family members v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2012. Series C No. 258, para. 16. 8 Cf. Case of Kimel, supra, para. 24, and Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 28, 2013. Series C No. 268, para. 19. 9 Cf. Case of Kimel, supra, para. 24, and Case of the Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.) v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 23, 2013. Series C No. 266, para. 266. 10 Article 62(3) of the Convention establishes: The jurisdiction of the Court shall comprise all cases concerning the interpretation and application of the provisions of this Convention that are submitted to it, provided that the States Parties to the case recognize or have recognized such jurisdiction, whether by special declaration pursuant to the preceding paragraphs, or by to special agreement. 11 Article 63(1) of the Convention establishes: If the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by this Convention, the Court shall rule that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated. It shall also rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measure or situation that constituted the breach of such right or freedom be remedied and that fair compensation be paid to the injured party. 12 Cf. Case of Baldeón García v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 56, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2011. Series C No. 232, para. 28. 11