17 52. The Inter-American Court, in exercising its contentious function, applies and interprets the American Convention and, when a case has already been submitted to its jurisdiction, it is empowered to declare the international responsibility of a State Party to the Convention for violation of its provisions.11 53. The Tribunal, in the use of its jurisdictional functions of international protection of human rights, may determine if an acknowledgment of international responsibility made by a respondent State offers sufficient foundation, in the terms of the American Convention, to continue or not with the examination of the merits and the determination of the possible reparations and costs. For these effects, the Court will analyze the situation presented in each specific case.12 54. In the respondent’s plea the State indicated that it does not contest the facts exposed in paragraphs 27 through 106 of the application [… of] the Inter-American Commission […], nor does it contest the arguments regarding these same facts presented by [… the] representatives, [… since] the same are duly substantiated and proven. Therefore, the State […] accepts the commission of acts by individuals that, despite having resulted in the violations argued by the […] Commission and […] [the representatives] in what refers to the [alleged] victims and their next of kin, it rejects that the same have occurred within the context of a systematic violation of human rights tolerated by the State. […] […T]he State […] assents to the parts of the application that relate to those regretful facts, accepting the measures of reparation proposed by the applicants and promising to comply in the least time possible to what that […] Court decides to order in this sense. The State […] DOES NOT assent to the parts included in the arguments of the […] Commission […] and […the] representatives that mention the existence of a context of alleged systematic violation of human rights tolerated and consented by it. 55. When referring to the acknowledgment of responsibility, the State, inter alia: a) acknowledged, in reference to the violation of Article 7 of the Convention, that: i) Marco Antonio Servellón García, Rony Alexis Betancourth Vásquez, Orlando Álvarez Ríos, and Diomedes Obed García Sánchez were detained without an arrest warrant, and none of them was surprised in fraganti in the commission of a crime, reason for which in the arrest with excessive violence and without a justified reason Articles 7(2) and 7(3) of the Convention were violated; ii) it did not inform the parents of the minors Servellón García and Betancourth Vásquez about their arrest, despite there was a special obligation to do so, nor did it inform the next of kin of Orlando Álvarez Ríos and Diomedes Obed García Sánchez, in violation of Article 7(4) of the Convention; iii) the alleged victims were not released despite the fact that the Police Judge issued a decision that stated it, being detained in a clandestine manner, since they appeared in the list of persons released on September 16, 1995, and that said Judge did not make sure that the mentioned decision was made effective, in violation of Article 7(5) of the Convention; iv) the minors Servellón García and Betancourth Vásquez were 11 Cfr. Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra note 3, para. 61; Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 3, para. 57; and Case of Baldeón García, supra note 3, para. 37. 12 Cfr. Case of Montero Aranguren et al. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, para. 39; Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra note 3, para. 62; and Case f the Ituango Massacres, supra note 3, para. 58.