22 detailed manner in their brief of pleadings [and] motions […].” Likewise, the Commission mentioned that the State, when it referred to the demands of the petition, “made arguments that seemed destined to contest the measures requested, with different shades. Therefore, the Commission consider[ed] that it cannot exactly speak of assent in the present case, since the State has only partially accepted the demands of the Commission and of the representatives of the [alleged] victims and their next of kin.” 70. The representatives stated that, “even when the State has assented to the reparations, it is important to consider that the arguments presented in this sense do not satisfy the totality of the reparations requested.” They added, “the considerations made by the […] State in relation to the measures adopted by it refer only to some of the reparations developed by the Commission and by [that] representation, but that they do not imply the totality of the reparations.” 71. From that exposed, the Court understands that the observations made by Honduras regarding the measures of non-repetition or satisfaction requested by the Commission and the representatives seek to prove that the State is making efforts to implement them, and that the observations are consistent with that mentioned by the State in the sense that it “accept[ed] the measures of reparation proposed […].” However, given that both the Commission and the representatives differ in some aspects regarding these measures, specifically, in regard to their implementation or effectiveness, this Court considers it appropriate to issue a ruling on this matter (infra paras. 186 through 203). C) The extent of the subsisting controversy 72. Article 38(2) of the Rules of Procedures states that [i]n its answer, the respondent must state whether it accepts the facts and claims or whether it contradicts them, and the Court may consider accepted those facts that have not been expressly denied and the claims that have not been expressly contested. 73. The Tribunal has previously stated that, pursuant to the mentioned Article 38(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court has the power to consider as accepted the facts that have not been expressly denied and the claims that have not been expressly contested. However, the Tribunal is not obliged to do so in all cases in which a similar situation presents itself. Therefore, in the exercise of its responsibility to protect human rights, the Court will determine in each specific case the need to make legal considerations and to consider the facts as established, either as presented by the parties, assessing the elements of the body of evidence, or as best concluded from said analysis.13 74. Based on the previous considerations, this Tribunal grants complete effect to the partial acknowledgment of responsibility (supra paras. 16, 54, 55, and 60). However, the Court acknowledges that there is still a controversy with regard to some of the violations claimed. 13 Cfr. Acosta Calderón. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 37; and Case of Caesar. Judgment of March 11, 2005. Series C No. 123, para. 38.