16 present their final written arguments, no later than January 23, 2006 (supra para. 20). Both the Commission and the representatives presented the mentioned final arguments on the date stated (supra para. 25). The State, however, presented its brief of final arguments along with its appendixes on February 24, 2006 (supra para. 26). 48. In this sense, on March 13, 2006 the Commission and the representatives presented their observations with regard to the presentation of said brief by the State. The Commission indicated that the presentation of the State’s final arguments and its appendixes was time-barred and that its admission would threaten the equality between the parties in the proceedings before the Court. On their part, the representatives requested that the Court “not admit the final arguments presented by the […] State […], since they were presented in a time-barred manner and affected the procedural balance” of the parties. However, they also mentioned that in the section called “Content and scope of the State’s Partial Assent”, Honduras offers “light on the scope of the acceptance of the State’s international responsibility, that up to that time was not clear[, and that] it seems to indicate that its assent covers all matters of this case that do no refer to the existence of a pattern of extrajudicial killings of boys, girls, and teenagers tolerated or fomented by the State,” and they requested that the Court “issue a favorable ruling regarding the assent presented [by the State] in the terms described.” 49. Given that the State presented its brief of final arguments along with its appendixes in a time-barred manner, this Tribunal does not admit them. However, this Court cannot ignore that in the mentioned brief the State expressed its position on the scope of its acknowledgement of responsibility, by expanding and precising its terms with regard to the violations presented by the Commission and the representatives. In this sense, given that the State may assent during any stage of the procedure,9 this Tribunal considers that it may not exclude or limit the effect of that expressed by the State regarding its acquiescence. Therefore, this Court will consider that expressed by the State regarding its assent in the mentioned brief. 50. Regarding the articles published by the press presented by the parties, the Tribunal considers that they may be assessed when they include public or notorious facts or statements of State employees or when they corroborate aspects related to the case.10 VI ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY 51. Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedures establishes that [i]f 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. 9 Cfr. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 66; and Case of Mack Chang. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 108. 10 Cfr. Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra note 3, para. 55; Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 3, para. 122; and Case of Palamara Iribarne. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135, para. 60.