17. In addition, the agreement established the scope of these rights, “specifically, [with regard to the] death of 107 inmates deprived of liberty in Cell No. 19 of the San Pedro Sula Prison on May 17, 2004. Furthermore, regarding the nature and mechanisms of the agreement, “in accordance with Article 63 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, [its intention] is to settle in a friendly manner the violation of rights protected by the American Convention, based on which the State […] is obliged to provide reparation for noncompliance with their protection. Regarding “the determination of the beneficiary,” it established that “[b]y agreement between the parties, it includes the victims and their next of kin described in the Inter-American Commission’s Report on Merits.” Moreover, “[t]aking into account the precarious situation of public finances, it was agreed to establish a fixed amount as compensation that includes pecuniary damage, non-pecuniary damage, expenses and costs,” which it asked should be kept confidential for security reasons.” In addition, “the parties jointly […] requested the Court to endorse the […] agreement when delivering its judgment that ends this litigation.” The State undertook, under the agreement, to prepare “a timetable for the implementation and discharge of the agreed elements, which includes the timing, those responsible and the implementation mechanisms, which will form part of the [agreement].”17 Lastly, “[t]he judgment delivered by the Court […] must be socialized to the public officials in charge of State entities of the national prison system to that they are aware of it and implement it.” The substantive elements of the agreements, as well as the measures of reparation ordered by the Court based on the violations declared will be dealt with in Chapters VII and VIII of this judgment. B. Considerations of the Court 18. Pursuant to Articles 62 and 63 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, the Court must determine the admissibility and the legal effects of the acknowledgement of international responsibility and the friendly settlement agreement. 19. In this regard, the Court considers that the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility makes a positive contribution to the advancement of these proceedings and the exercise of the principles underlying the American Convention.18 The Court also considers, as in other cases,19 that this acknowledgment has full legal effects in this case. Also, it assesses positively that the parties have reached a friendly settlement, which reflects the willingness of Honduras to make integral reparation for the harm caused to the victims as a result of the violations in this case, and represents a significant opportunity for the State to ensure that similar events are not repeated. The Court also finds that, when the parties reach agreement, this contributes to the objectives of the inter-American system for the protection of human rights, especially to the purpose of finding just solutions to the specific and structural problems of a case. 20. Based on the above, according to the terms in which the State acknowledged its responsibility in the case and the purpose of the friendly settlement agreement, the Court finds that the dispute has ceased with regard to the facts and the violations of Articles 4 (Right to Life), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 9 (Freedom 17 On April 17, 2012, the State sent the Court the timetable for execution and fulfillment (hereinafter “implementation timetable”). 18 Cf. Case of Trujillo Oroza v. Bolivia. Merits. Judgment of January 26, 2000. Series C No. 64, para. 42, supra, and Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2011. Series C No. 232, para. 26. 19 Cf. Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 7, 2006. Series C No. 144, paras. 176 to 180, and Case of Torres Millacura et al. v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 26, 2011. Series C No. 229, para. 37. 9