11 b) c) and dignity and the mitigation of the damages inflicted to their next of kin, as well as it contributes to the efforts to avoid the repetition of similar situations; it agrees with the State that the report issued by the Comisión de la Verdad y Reconciliación (Truth and Reconciliation Commission) is a fundamental tool for disclosing the true facts and the violations involved in the instant case and important issues regarding the conclusions reached by the Commission on the grounds of the acts acknowledged, are still unsettled: i. even though it accepts the excessive duration of the investigations until 2001, the State holds that as from said year, investigations have been diligently initiated and carried out. The Commission notes that the acknowledgement is made only in connection with violations committed during the government of Alberto Fujimori and does not include the responsibility of the State for the breach of the right to fair trial and judicial protection, and consequently, impunity continues in connection with this case up to the present time. ii. The need for the adoption of the necessary measures to formalize and provide legal certainty to the lack of effectiveness and applicability of the amnesty laws, by suppressing them of domestic law, and iii. The extent of the damage inflicted to the victims´ next of kin and the need for a complete and adequate redress. 46. In their brief of requests and arguments, as well as in their oral and written closing arguments, the representatives declared that: a) b) c) 47. through several acts the State has admitted the participation of high political and military authorities in the events subject matter of the complaint. During the international proceedings conducted before the States Parties to the UN and the OAS, and particularly before the governments of Japan and Chile when applying for the extradition of former President Alberto Fujimori, Perú has specifically referred to the intellectual liability of former President Alberto Fujimori for the crimes of Barrio Alto and La Cantuta. Under democracy, the State has admitted, to a great extent, its responsibility for the events subject matter of the instant case; nevertheless there are important issues that are still disputed; most of them related to the impunity still existing. the representatives of the victims expressed their gratitude to the State of Perú for the significance the acknowledgement of international responsibility has “for their principals and because it contributes to the preservation of the historical memory for the events denounced in the instant case brought before the Inter American system.” Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure provides that [i]f the respondent informs the Court of its acquiescence to the claims of the party that has brought the case as well as to the claims of the representatives of the alleged victims, their next of kin or representatives, the Court, after hearing the opinions of the other parties to the case, shall decide whether such acquiescence and its juridical effects are acceptable. In that event, the Court shall determine the appropriate reparations and costs. 48. Article 55 of the Rules provides that [T]he Court may, notwithstanding the existence of the conditions indicated in the preceding paragraphs, and bearing in mind its responsibility to protect human rights, decide to continue the consideration of a case.