8 show that its official agents were not the perpetrators of the unlawful and arbitrary detention, torture and murder of Consuelo Benavides, nor could it deny that those actions were in violation of Ecuador’s Constitution and laws and respect for human rights. Consequently, the Ecuadorian State acknowledges its responsibility in the events in question and undertakes to make reparations through the friendly settlement arrangement provided for in Article 45 of the Regulations of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, which serves as a mediator vis-à-vis the Court for states that have accepted the Court’s jurisdiction, and especially inasmuch as the instant case is being heard by the Court. […] The Ecuadorian State has also decided to acknowledge to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights that its official agents were responsible for the arrest, unlawful detention, torture and murder of Consuelo Benavides Cevallos and, in accordance with Articles 23 and 25 of the Constitution of the Republic, has decided to undertake responsibility for these events […]. 36. In this connection, the delegate for the Commission stated that it had: […] determined that Consuelo Benavides was arbitrarily and illegally arrested and detained, tortured and murdered by agents of the Ecuadorian State in December of 1985. The State agents, who were connected to government agencies, engaged […] in a systematic campaign to cover up the crimes and deny the responsibility of the State. It was not until three years after Consuelo’s disappearance that her family finally learned of her fate. Because of their relentless efforts and the efforts of the multiparty investigation committee appointed by the National Congress of Ecuador, the crimes were brought to light in December of 1988. However, even with the crimes and the cover-up finally being revealed, the intellectual and material authors most responsible were not brought to justice. It was on the basis of the gravity of the violations, the failure of the State to address the cover-up through a proper investigation and prosecution, and a denial of justice which had wrapped the perpetrators in impunity in violation of Articles 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 25 of the American Convention, that the Commission submitted the case to the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. We have just heard from the distinguished delegates of the State of Ecuador, an unequivocal acknowledgment […] of each and every one of the violations alleged by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Consequently, from the position or point of view of the Commission with respect to this phase of the proceeding, there is no material disagreement.4 37. Once the State and the Commission had made their statements on the first two points (supra, para. 33), the President adjourned the first hearing so that the Court might deliberate on the procedure to be followed in addressing the remaining two points. 38. The second public hearing began that same June 11, 1998. The President informed the State and the Commission that the Court had taken note of Ecuador’s acknowledgement of international responsibility for violations of Articles 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 25 of the American Convention and of the Inter-American Commission’s 4 In English in the original.