of the specific case, and the attitude and position of the parties,12 so that it can determine, insofar as possible and in exercise of its competence, the truth of what occurred.13 24. The Court observes that, although the State failed to specify the violations that it was acknowledging, it was clearly willing to accept the facts contained in the merits report in the terms in which the case was submitted to the Court; that is, with the explicit possibility indicated by the Commission that the State recognize “the Court’s competence to hear the whole of the instant case,” which is what happened (supra para. 9). Taking into account the foregoing, the Court finds that the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility represents an admission of all the facts that were considered proved in chapter IV of the merits report, which include the events that occurred from 1980 to 2007, and which are described in the sections entitled “A. Context”, “B. The massacres”, “C. The criminal investigation”, “D. The decision to dismiss the case and the application of the Law of General Amnesty for the Consolidation of Peace,” “E. Requests to reopen the proceedings,” and “F. Exhumations following the decision of the Second First Instance Judge of San Francisco Gotera of September 27, 1993.” In addition, the State accepted the facts included in the representatives’ pleadings and motions brief, specifically those described in the sections entitled: “(a) Exhumations performed between 2000 and 2004,” and “(b) The reopening request filed in 2006,” as well as in “(3) The suffering experienced by the surviving victims and their next of kin as a result of the impunity in which the facts remain.” 25. Regarding the facts relating to the alleged loss of property and the supposed displacement of the surviving presumed victims, the State accepted those contained in the merits report. With regard to those presented in the representatives’ brief that explain, describe, clarify, or reject those mentioned in the merits report,14 the Court finds that the State’s arguments (supra para. 17) are related to a matter of assessment of the evidence. Consequently, the Court will make the relevant determination in the corresponding chapters, taking into account the State’s observations. 26. Based on the above, the Court considers that the dispute subsists with regard to the legal consequences of the facts that have been acknowledged, owing to the alleged violations of Articles 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 13, 19, 21, 22 and 25 of the American Convention in relation to the obligations established in Articles 1(1) and 2 of this instrument; Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the InterAmerican Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, and Article 7 of the Inter-American Convention for the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence against Women “Convention of Belém do Pará,” all in the terms alleged by the Commission and the representatives. In addition, the dispute subsists with regard to the identification of the victims in this case and to compliance with the measure of reparation consisting in the public acknowledgment of responsibility, which the State maintains has already been made. Lastly, regarding the other claims relating to reparations, the Court observes that there is still a dispute with regard to their scope and the results invoked by the State. Consequently, the Court will take the pertinent decisions. 27. In this regard, the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility constitutes a full acceptance of the facts, which gives rise to full legal effects in accordance with Articles 62 and 64 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, and the Court must determine the legal consequences. Based on the severity of the acts and of the alleged violations, the Court will proceed to determine the events that occurred comprehensively and in detail, because this contributes to making reparation to the victims, to avoiding a repetition of similar events and, in brief, to meeting the objectives of 12 Cf. Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008. Series C No. 177, para. 24, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 4, 2012. Series C No. 250, para. 22. 13 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 the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, para. 20. 14 Cf. Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2011. Series C No. 237, para. 33, and Case of Díaz Peña v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 26, 2012. Series C No. 244, para. 34. 11