10 i) Acknowledgment by the State as to the facts 52. The Court finds that the controversy as to the facts alleged in the application, which are deemed proven as set forth in paragraph 71 of this Judgment, has ceased. 53. It should be noted that the events occurred before the date when the State recognized the jurisdiction of the Court will only be taken into account as regards to the obligations undertaken by the State, which continued in force after March 26, 1993. The Court finds that the approval of the State does not reflect an aim to extend the jurisdiction of the Court to be subject to proceedings for acts resulting in human rights violations occurred before the date when the State recognized the jurisdiction of the Court. ii) Acknowledgment by the State as to the claims 54. The State notified the Court of its acquiescence in the violations of the rights set forth in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of said treaty, and Article 5(1) thereof, in relation to Articles 1(1) of said treaty and Articles 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. Furthermore, the State acknowledged having failed to comply with its obligation to investigate and punish the violation of the rights set forth in Articles 4, 5(1) and 7 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of said treaty, and the violation of the right to special protection measures for children, set forth in Article 19 of said instrument, in relation to Articles 1(1), 2 and 7 thereof. 55. Pursuant to Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court is entitled to determine the applicability of said acknowledgment. Moreover, the Court is empowered to establish the scope of its own jurisdiction.6 56. The Court restates that the acquiescence made by the State covers only the alleged violations occurred after the jurisdiction of the Court was recognized. 57. Therefore, the Court finds that the acknowledgment of international liability made by the State for violation of the rights set forth in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of said treaty, and Article 5(1) thereof, in relation to Article 1(1) of said treaty and Articles 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture is valid. The foregoing considerations apply to the events occurred after March 26, 1993, when the State recognized the jurisdiction of the Court, to the detriment of the relatives of the minor Gerardo Vargas-Areco, as specified in paragraph 83 of this Judgment. 58. Moreover, the Court finds that the acknowledgment of international liability made by the State for non-fulfillment of the obligation to investigate and punish the violation of the rights set forth in Articles 4 and 5(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of said treaty is valid. The foregoing considerations apply to the events occurred after March 26, 1993, to the detriment of the relatives of the minor Gerardo Vargas-Areco. Cf. Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico. Judgment of September 8, 2005. Series C No. 130, para. 78; Case of Caesar. Judgment of March 11, 2005. Series C No. 123, para. 8; Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of November 23, 2004. Series C No. 118, para. 63. 6