-35172. In answer to a request for clarification made by the President, the State pointed out that “[i]n relation to the purported international responsiblity […], it consider[ed] necessary to make it clear that, in the instant case, it has not complied with the judgment pronounced [by the Tribunal Constitucional (Constitutional Court) on July 8, 1998 concerning the ESMLL workers,] nor has it incurred in any responsibility, [since s]uch judgment […] is currently in the enforcement phase” and “even though it disagrees with the content of the judgment, it has not challenged and it does not challenge the judgment issued […] and submits to the enforcement thereof,” “[which] declaration does not imply the acknowledgment of responsibility for violating the right to judicial protection.” Moreover, the State stated to the Court that it does not recognize what has been ordered in the judgments on dismissals, but it only “submits to the conclusions of the Multi-Sector Committee” established by Law No. 27,586 (infra, par. 204(28) to 204(33)). 173. The Tribunal, in exercise of its inherent powers to exercise international judicial protection of human rights, may determine whether the acknowledgment of international responsibility made by a State which is brought as a respondent before the Inter-American human rights protection system organs is sufficient to provide grounds under the American Convention to proceed or not with the trial on the merits and with the determination of any applicable reparations.16 To this end, the Tribunal analyzes the state of affairs in each case individually. 174. Firstly, the court deems necessary to emphasize that the processing of each individual complaint seeking a jurisdictional decision by the Court requires the protection system established by the American Convention to work as an institutional whole. Before a contentious case can be brought before the Court alleging human rights violations by a State Party who has recognized the Court’s contentious jurisdiction, a proceeding must be instituted before the Commission, which starts by filing a petition with the Commission.17 The proceeding before the Commission provides for safeguards both for the respondent governement and for the alleged victims, their next of kin or their representatives, among which safeguards it is worth underscoring those concerning the requirements for the admissiblity of the petition and those concerning the principles of adversary procedure, procedural equality and juridical certainty.18 It is during the proceeding before the Commission when the respondent State initially submits the information, allegations and evidence it deems relevant to the petition, and the evidence rendered in adversarial procedure may later be put on the record of the case before the Court. The position taken up by the State in the proceeding before the Commission also determines to a large extent the position of the alleged victims, their next of kin or their representatives, which in turn affects the course of the proceeding, where even a friendly settlement may be reached. 16 Cf. Case of García-Asto and Ramírez-Rojas. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, para. 58; Case of the “Mapiripan Massacre.” Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 65; and Case of Huilca Tecse. Judgment of March 3, 2005. Series C No. 121, para. 42..”. 17 Cf. Case of Viviana Gallardo et al. Series A No. G 101/81, Legal Considerations 12(b), 16, 20, 21 and 22. 18 Cf. Control of Legality in the Practice of Authorities of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (Arts. 41 and 44 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-19/05 of November 28, 2005.Series A No. 19, para. 25–27.