6 declaration to incorporate both the acceptance of the factual framework and total acquiescence to the claims put forward by the Commission in its application.” 21. The representative held that, “the [a]cknowledgment of total [i]nternational [r]esponsibility formulated by the State,” “does not make any distinction with regard to the effects of retroactively applying the Law Decree No. 25876,” and it cannot mean that it “only covers the deductions of the raises paid between January and November of 1992.” Likewise, the representative indicated that “according to the estoppel principle,” it is a contradiction for the State to acknowledge international responsibility but not accept the totality of the material and moral damages claimed by the alleged victims. The representative also indicated that the damages for the lack of raises in the salaries should be added up through the present and not through 1993, as the State has indicated. Finally, the representative argued that the dispute over the alleged violation of Article 21 of the American Convention remains. 2. Considerations of the Court regarding the State’s acknowledgment 22. According to Articles 62 and 64 of the Rules of Procedure11 and in exercise of its powers of international judicial protection of human rights, an issue of international public order that transcends the will of the parties, it is the Tribunal’s responsibility to ensure that acts of acquiescence are acceptable for the goals sought by the InterAmerican system. In this task, it is not limited to verifying, registering, or taking note of the acknowledgment made by the State, nor to verifying the formal conditions of those acts of acquiescence. Rather, it must examine them in keeping with the nature and seriousness of the alleged violations, the demands and interests of justice, the specific circumstances of the particular case, and the attitudes and positions of the parties,12 in such a way that, where possible and within the exercise of its competence, it can specify the truth of what took place. 23. In the present case, the Court observes that there is no dispute between the parties with regard to the facts and the violation of Article 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to the obligation established in Article 1(1) of the American Convention. 24. Also, the Tribunal notes that in its brief answering the application, the State emphasized that the acknowledgment of its responsibility does not imply the acceptance of the amount established by the representative for material and moral damages. Specifically, there is a dispute between the parties over reparations, as there is no agreement with regard to whether the amount of material damage should be added up through the salary restructuring that took place at the company in 1993 or through the present day (infra paras. 105 to 115). 11 The pertinent parts of Articles 62 and 64 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court establish the following: 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. 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. 12 Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008. Series C No. 177, para. 24; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2010. Serie C No. 217, para. 34, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panamá. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2010. Serie C No. 218, para. 63