12 circumstances of the specific case, and the attitude and position of the parties,19 so that it can elucidate the truth about what took place, to the extent possible and in the exercise of its competence.20 Thus, such acknowledgment cannot result in the direct or indirect limitation of the Court’s exercise of its powers to hear a case that has been submitted to it,21 and to decide if there was a violation of any right or freedom protected by the Convention.22 26. Regarding the facts of this case, the Court confirms that the State is clearly willing to accept as true the facts presented by the Inter-American Commission in section IV of the merits report, specifically those described under the following headings “C. With respect to José Adrián Rochac Hernández”, “D. With respect to Santos Ernesto Salinas”, “E. Emelinda Lorena Hernández” and “F. Manuel Antonio Bonilla and Ricardo Ayala Abarca”, as well as the facts included in the pleadings and motions brief of the representatives, specifically those described in section I, referring to the circumstances and facts surrounding the disappearance of the children, which contains the following sections: “1) José Adrián Rochac Hernández”; “2) Santos Ernesto Salinas”; “3) Emelinda Lorena Hernández”; “4) Manuel Antonio Bonilla Osorio” and “5) Ricardo Ayala Abarca.” Therefore, the Court considers that the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility encompasses the facts that occurred from 1980 until 2004, regarding the circumstances in which the forced disappearances occurred and the proceedings in the domestic courts. Furthermore, in view of the State’s comments during the public hearing, the Court considers that the State also accepted references to the context in which the disappearances occurred and acknowledged that these formed part of a systematic pattern of forced disappearances. 27. Given that the State has acknowledged “the conclusions contained in the report on the merits, issued by [the] Commission, regarding the violations established to the detriment of the disappeared children and of their next of kin identified in said report” (supra para. 20), the Court considers that the dispute between the parties has ceased in relation to the forced disappearances of José Adrián Rochac Hernández, Santos Ernesto Salinas, Emelinda Lorena Hernández, Manuel Antonio Bonilla and Ricardo Abarca Ayala, and the legal consequences thereof, for the alleged violations of the rights enshrined in the following Articles: 3 (Right to Recognition of Juridical Personality), 4 (Right to Life), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 8 (Judicial Guarantees), 17 (Protection of the Family), 19 (Rights of the Child) and 25 (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the aforementioned children. Likewise, the dispute has ceased with respect to the alleged violations of Articles 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 8 (Judicial Guarantees), 17 (Rights of the Family) and 25 (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the next of kin of José Adrián Rochac Hernández, Santos Ernesto Salinas, Emelinda Lorena Hernández, Manuel Antonio Bonilla and Ricardo Abarca Ayala. Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008. Series C No. 177, para. 24, and Case of Gutiérrez and Family v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2013. Series C No. 271, para. 21. 19 Cf. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 17, and Case of Gutiérrez and Family v. Argentina, supra, para. 21. 20 Article 62(3) of the Convention states: The jurisdiction of the Court shall comprise all cases concerning the interpretation and application of the provisions of this Convention that are submitted to it, provided that the States Parties to the case recognize or have recognized such jurisdiction, whether by special statement pursuant to the preceding paragraphs, or by a special agreement. 21 Article 63(1) of the Convention states: If the Court finds that there has been a violation of a right or freedom protected by this Convention, the Court shall rule that the injured party be ensured the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated. It shall also rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measure or situation that constituted the breach of such right or freedom be remedied and that fair compensation be paid to the injured party. 22