15 63. Article 55 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court 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. 64. First of all, exercising its adjudicatory function, the Court applies and interprets the American Convention and, when a case has been brought before it, the Court is empowered to find a State Party to the Convention responsible for violating its provisions. 65. Second, the Court, exercising its inherent authority for the international juridical protection of human rights, may establish whether an acknowledgment of international responsibility by a respondent State provides sufficient basis, under the terms of the American Convention, to continue or not to continue hearing the merits and establishing reparations and costs. For this purpose, the Court will analyze the situation in each specific case. 66. In cases in which there has been acquiescence and acknowledgment of international responsibility, heard before by the Court, it has established that: […] Article 53[2] of the Rules of Procedure refers to a situation in which a respondent State informs the Court of its acquiescence regarding the facts and the claims of the applicant party and, therefore, accepts its international responsibility for breaching the convention, in the terms set forth in the application, a situation that would give rise to early termination of the proceeding regarding the merits of the matter, as set forth in chapter V of the Rules of Procedure. The Court notes that with the provisions of the Rules of Procedure that entered into force on June 1, 2001, the application brief includes the considerations regarding the facts and the points of law as well as the claims regarding the merits of the matter and the requests for the respective reparations and costs. In this regard, when a State acquiesces to the application, it must clearly state whether it does so only regarding the merits of the matter, or whether it also includes reparations and costs. If the acquiescence refers only to the merits of the matter, the Court will consider whether it will continue with the procedural stage of determining reparations and costs. […] In light of the evolution of the system for the protection of human rights, where the alleged victims or their next of kin can today autonomously submit their brief with pleadings, motions, and evidence, and wield claims that may or may not coincide with those of the Commission, when there is an acquiescence it must clearly state whether the claims made by the alleged victims or their next of kin are also accepted. […] On the other hand, the Rules of Procedure of the Court do not establish any specific moment for the respondent party to state its acquiescence. Therefore, if a State resorts to this procedural act at any stage of the proceeding, this Court, after hearing all the parties, must evaluate and decide its scope in each specific case.5 67. In the instant case, as was established when the Judgment on Preliminary Objections and Acknowledgment of Responsibility was issued (supra para. 37), at the very moment in which the State made its acknowledgment of international responsibility, there remained a dispute on an important part of the subject matter of 5 See Case of Molina Theissen. Judgment of May 4, 2004. Series C No. 106, paras. 41 to 44; Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre. Judgment of April 29, 2004. Series C No. 105, paras. 43 to 48, and Case of Myrna Mack Chang. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, paras. 106 to 108.