public order that transcends the will of the parties, it is the Court’s responsibility to ensure that acts of acquiescence are acceptable for the goals sought by the InterAmerican System. It is not limited in this task to verifying, registering, or taking note of the acknowledgment made by the State, nor to verifying the formal conditions of those acts of acquiescence. Rather, it must examine them in light of the nature and seriousness of the alleged violations, the demands and interests of justice, the specific circumstances of the particular case, and the attitudes and positions of the parties9 in such a way that, where possible and within the exercise of its competence, it can establish the truth regarding what took place. Additionally, the Court observes that the evolution of the system of human rights protection currently allows alleged victims or their family members to autonomously submit their brief of pleadings, motions, and evidence and put forward claims that may or may not coincide with those of the Commission. Therefore, when an acquiescence is presented, the State must clearly express whether it accepts the claims made by the alleged victims or their family members. 10 35. The Court observes that the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility refers to the Commission’s Report on the merits and not to the application it presented before the Tribunal in this case. Upon comparing these documents, the Court notes that the parts corresponding to allegations of fact and law and to reparations are essentially identical, with only a few differences, such as: the specific allegation of the violation of Article I(b) of the Convention on Forced Disappearance that appears in paragraph 209 of the application but not in the corresponding paragraph of the Report on the merits; the individualization of some victims in paragraph 275 of the Report on the merits with regard to the alleged violation of Article 5 of the American Convention to the detriment of the “immediate family of Iván Eladio Torres,” a reference not found in the application; and the individualization of three relatives of Iván Eladio Torres, indicated in paragraph 256 of the application with regard to the reparations requested by the Commission, an individualization that is not found in the Report on the merits. Additionally, the State expressly rejected the allegations of law that were formulated by the representatives in addition to those presented by the Inter-American Commission, 11 the representatives’ Article 62. Acquiescence If the respondent informs the Court of its acceptance of the facts or its total or partial acquiescence to the claims stated in the presentation of the case or the brief submitted by the alleged victims or their representatives, the Court shall decide, having heard the opinions of all those participating in the proceedings and at the appropriate procedural moment, whether to accept that acquiescence, and shall rule upon its juridical effects. Article 64. Continuation of a case Bearing in mind its responsibility to protect human rights, the Court may decide to continue the consideration of a case notwithstanding the existence of the conditions indicated in the preceding Articles. 9 Cf. Case of Kimel V. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008. Series C No. 177, para. 24; Case of Vélez Loor V. Panamá. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23 of 2010. Series C No. 218, para. 63, and Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. V. Perú. Merits Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 4, 2011. Series C No. 223, para. 22. 10 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang V. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 29; Case of the “Las Dos Erres” Massacre V. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 29, and Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña V. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2010 Series C No. 217, para. 33. 11 As has already been mentioned, these refer to the violations of Articles 1(1), 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 19, 25, and 26 of the American Convention; 1, 2, 6, and 8 of the Convention Against Torture; III of the Convention on Forced Disappearance; and the “Protocol of San Salvador” as a whole alleged by the representatives to the detriment of Iván Eladio Torres Millacura, María Leontina Millacura Llaipén, Fabiola Valeria Torres, Marco Alejandro Torres, Evelyn Paola Caba, Ivana Valeria Torres, and Romina Marcela Torres, in relation to the section on “[c]itizen [s]ecurity and [h]uman [r]ights” of the brief of pleadings and motions. 10