8 the Court “rule on the violations of the victims’ human rights that have been committed from the day of their disappearance to date.” 24. According to Articles 53(2) and 55 of the Rules of Procedure and in exercise of its powers to provide international judicial protection for human rights, the Court can decide whether an acknowledgement of international responsibility made by a defendant State offers sufficient grounds, in the terms of the Convention, to continue examining the merits and determine possible reparations and costs.23 25. In this regard, the Court observes that the phrase “shall decide whether such acquiescence and its legal effects are acceptable,” as well as the integral text of Article 55 of the Rules of Procedure, indicate that these declarations are not, in themselves, binding for the Court. Since the cases before this Court refer to the protection of human rights, an issue that relates to international public order and transcends the intention of the parties, the Court must ensure that such declarations are acceptable for the purposes that the Inter-American System seeks to achieve. In this task, the Court does not limit itself to merely verifying the formal conditions of said declarations, but must relate them to the nature and seriousness of the alleged violations, the interest and requirements of justice, the particular circumstances of the specific case, and the attitude and position of the parties.24 26. In the instant case, the Court considers that the State’s partial acknowledgement of responsibility makes a positive contribution to the development of these proceedings, to the satisfactory functioning of the Inter-American jurisdiction with regard to human rights, to the exercise of the principles that inspire the American Convention, and to the conduct which the States are obliged to adopt in this regard,25 based on the undertakings they make as parties to international human rights instruments.26 27. Regarding the facts, the Court observes that, in general terms, the State admitted the contextual facts concerning violence against women in Ciudad Juárez, particularly the murders that have been recorded since the beginning of the 1990s, as well as the facts regarding what the State refers to as the “first stage” of the investigations into the crimes perpetrated against the three victims from 2001 to 2003. Furthermore, Mexico has accepted the facts relating to the effects on the mental integrity and the dignity of the next of kin of the three victims. 23 Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure stipulates that: If the respondent informs the Court of its acquiescence to the claims of the party that has brought the case as well as to the claims of the representatives of the alleged victims, their next of kin or representatives, the Court, after hearing the opinions of the other parties to the case, shall decide whether such acquiescence and its juridical effects are acceptable. In that event, the Court shall determine the appropriate reparations and indemnities. And, Article 55 del Rules of Procedure establishes that: The Court may,notwithstanding the existence of the conditions indicated in the preceding paragraphs and bearing in mind its responsibility to protect human rights, decide to continue the consideration of a case. 24 Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008. Series C No. 177, para. 24, and Case of Ticona Estrada v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 21. 25 Cf. Case of Trujillo Oroza v. Bolivia. Merits. Judgment of January 26, 2000. Series C No. 64, para. 42; Case of Albán Cornejo et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2007. Series C No.171. para. 24, and Case of Kimel v. Argentina, supra note 24, para. 25. 26 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2004. Series C No. 117, para. 84; Case of Albán Cornejo et al. v. Ecuador, supra note 25, para. 24, and Kimel v. Argentina, supra note 24, para. 25.