State “is accepting the events on which they are based” and, therefore, “there is no dispute concerning the factual framework that substantiates these violations, or the legal consequences indicated.” Nevertheless, it observed that “some violations still remain for which the State has accepted partial responsibility and others that it has rejected entirely”; thus, the Court must rule on all the alleged facts and violations. The Commission asked the Court to “admit the State’s acknowledgment of international responsibility.” Similarly, it underscored that the State had acknowledged “all the victims identified by the Commission.” Regarding the reparations agreement, the Inter-American Commission “appreciate[d] that the parties ha[d] reached an agreement […] and ask[ed] the Court to take it into consideration in the judgment” and, “if it deemed it pertinent, to order other measures of reparation.” 15. The representatives did not refer to the State’s partial acknowledgment of responsibility. However, in their final written arguments, they asked the Court to endorse the reparations agreement. C) Considerations of the Court 16. Pursuant to Articles 62, 63, and 64 of the Rules of Procedure, 11 and in exercise of its authority to ensure the international judicial protection of human rights, a matter of international public order that transcends the will of the parties, it is incumbent upon the Court to ensure that acts of acknowledgment of responsibility and possible agreements between the parties are admissible for the purposes of the inter-American system. This task is not limited to merely verifying, recording or taking note of the acknowledgment made by the State, or to confirming the formal conditions of such acts; rather, the Court must examine them in keeping with the nature and seriousness 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, 12 so that it can clarify the truth about what happened insofar as possible and in the exercise of its competence. 13 Accordingly, the Court will proceed to determine the admissibility and legal effects of the State’s acknowledgment of international responsibility and of the reparations agreement reached by the parties. 17. Article 41(1)(a) of the Rules of Procedure stipulates that, in its answering brief, the State must indicate whether it accepts the facts and claims, or whether it contests them. In addition, Article 41(3) of the Rules of Procedure indicates that “the Court may consider those facts that have not been expressly denied and those claims that have not been expressly controverted as accepted.” 11 Articles 62, 63 and 64 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure establish: “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 presumed 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 63. Friendly Settlement. When the Commission; the victims or presumed 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 occurrence likely to lead to a settlement of the dispute, the Court shall rule upon its admissibility and juridical effects at the appropriate procedural time.” “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, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 25, 2012. Series C No. 252, para. 23. 13 Cf. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 17, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, supra, para. 23. 9