declaration acknowledging the Court’s jurisdiction includes a time limit,21 in this case, the State accepted all the facts contained in the Commission’s Report on Merits, “including those prior to the acceptance of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction” (supra para. 12). In other words, the State has clearly demonstrated its willingness to accept all the facts included in the Commission’s Merits Report, together with the violations declared in this case and their legal consequences, thereby consenting to the Court’s full endorsement of the Settlement signed by the parties in this case. Thus, Mexico has expressly renounced any time limit on the Court’s exercise of its jurisdiction. In this specific case, this Court views the State’s acceptance in a positive light. V REQUEST FOR THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF THE VICTIMS’ IDENTITY 27. During the proceedings before the Court, the representatives reported that their clients had informed them that the names of the victims used in the domestic criminal proceedings differed from those used in this international proceeding, and explained that the victims had concealed their true identities for fear that their families would suffer reprisals.22 Therefore, in the friendly settlement agreement, the parties requested that in the proceeding before the Court and in this Judgment, “they continue to use the names that the victims had during [these] proceedings,”23 and be required to “maintain strict confidentiality […] of the victims’ personal information.”24 On November 19, 2013, the representatives’ Common Intervener repeated this request, arguing that, “the safety of the victims cannot be guaranteed until the conclusion of [the preliminary criminal investigation initiated for the crime of torture] and of any other legal proceeding arising from it.” 28. The Court approves the request to keep the victims’ identity confidential in the interests of protecting their personal integrity and security and that of their families. This confidentiality must be respected both within the context of this case before the Court and also in the statements or any other information that any of the parties make public about this case. The Commission and the parties must guarantee the confidentiality of the victims’ identity by refraining from releasing such information to third parties not involved in this case. VI SUMMARY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS VI. A) INTRODUCTION 29. The knowledge of all the legal aspects of the friendly settlement agreement and the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility, together with the stage of the proceedings at which they were presented for consideration and the endorsement of said agreement, make it unnecessary for this Court to make its own determination of the facts and legal consequences in this case, based on an analysis and assessment of the evidence submitted thus far in the 21 The instrument through which Mexico accepted the Court’s contentious jurisdiction includes a time limit with respect to the cases that could be submitted to its consideration, in the following terms: “2. The acceptance of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction will apply only to facts or legal actions subsequent to the date on which this declaration is deposited, and consequently will have no retroactive effects.” Text of the statement of acceptance of the contentious jurisdiction of the Court, signed December 16, 1998. 22 Brief of October 9, 2013, and annexes. 23 Friendly settlement agreement and the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility, supra note 9, section “I. Preliminary Considerations.” 24 Friendly settlement agreement and the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility, supra note 9, section “XII. Final Provisions,” second paragraph. 9