23 submitted to the jurisdiction thereof, is empowered to decide on the international liability of a State Party to the Convention as a result of the violation of the provisions thereof.20 62. In the exercise of its powers to guarantee the international effective judicial protection of human rights, the Court may determine if the acknowledgement of international liability made by a respondent State offers sufficient grounds, under the terms of the American Convention, whether to continue hearing the merits of the case or discontinue it, and to determine the possible reparations and legal costs thereof. To that purpose, the Court shall assess the facts set forth in each specific case.21 63. At the public hearing held on November 30, 2005 ( supra paras. 34 and 36) the State argued that: a) it recognizes the relevance of the complaint filed by the InterAmerican Commission as to the violation of Articles 4 (Right to Life) and 5 (Right to Personal Integrity) of the American Convention; b) it recognizes the facts alleged in the case regarding the death of Mr. Damião Ximenes-Lopes, and the lack of prevention necessary to overcome the conditions that allowed such an event to happen, since at that time the State mental health care system was precarious, which constituted a violation of Article 4 of the Convention; c) it recognizes the facts alleged in the case regarding the mistreatment suffered by Mr. Damião Ximenes-Lopes before his death, which resulted in a violation of Article 5 of the Convention; d) it requests that the dispute over such Articles be discontinued and that the other relevant matters be continued; e) it does not recognize the request for reparations resulting from the violation of Articles 4 and 5 of the Convention, which remains open to debate and f) it does not recognize the violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. 64. For its part, at the same public hearing the Inter-American Commission argued that it recognized “the positive, ethical, responsible, and constructive attitude adopted by the [… State] in acknowledging its liability for the violation of Articles 4 and 5 [of the Convention].” The Commission further stated that “[s]uch an attitude is not only an important contribution to the outcome of the instant case, but also a very important precedent in Brazil and in the region on how the States should act responsibly when the facts are unquestionable and so is the responsibility of the State as regards to human rights within the framework of the Inter-American System.” Finally, the Commission stated that it considered that the dispute over both the factual and legal issues regarding Articles 4 and 5 of the Convention had come to an end. Cf. Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 4, para. 37; Case of Blanco-Romero et al. Judgment of November 28, 2005. Series C No. 138, para. 54; and Case of García-Asto and Ramírez-Rojas. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, para. 173. 20 Cf. Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 4, para. 38; Case of Gómez-Palomino. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, para. 28; and Case of the Mapiripán Massacre. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 65. 21