i) The violation of Article 19 (Rights of the Child) of the American Convention to the detriment of María Eustaquia Uscap Ivoy, because she was of age when the contentious jurisdiction of the Court was recognized. 19. In its answering brief, the State also acknowledged some of the “victims in this case,” and provided a list of names. In addition, it presented a list of victims who have presumably already received compensation under the National Reparations Program, and accepted some of the claims for reparation put forward by the representatives. 20. Regarding the “total acquiescence” to the violations indicated in subparagraphs (a) and (i) of paragraph 17, the Commission considered that there is no longer any dispute “regarding the factual framework that substantiates the said violations, or the legal consequences claimed.” Regarding the remaining violations, the Inter-American Commission indicated that it understood that “the partial acknowledgement of responsibility […] has a broad scope consistent with the terms of acknowledgement and taking into account the case law of the inter-American system concerning continuing violations, as well as the facts that occurred within the Court’s temporal competence.” Nevertheless, although it assessed this partial acknowledgement positively, it indicated that “there are still some violations regarding which the State has not accepted responsibility, and that remain in dispute.” Therefore, the Commission asked the Court: (a) to grant full legal effects to the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility; (b) to present a detailed description of the facts and the violations that occurred; (c) to make a thorough analysis of the violations that were partially acknowledged and those that were contested, and (d) to proceed to declare the international responsibility of the State with regard to them. 21. In general, the representatives indicated that the State’s answering brief contained a series of inconsistencies because, on the one hand, it contested the Court’s temporal competence while, on the other hand, it offered an acknowledgement of international responsibility. In this regard, the representatives considered that Guatemala had breached the principle of estoppel, citing diverse case law of the Inter-American Court according to which “a State that has adopted a specific position, which produces legal effects […] cannot […] adopt another position that is contradictory to the former.” Therefore, the representatives considered that the State’s position was incompatible with “the nature and gravity of the alleged violations, the requirements and interests of justice, [and] the particular circumstances of the case […].” 22. In accordance with Articles 62 and 64 of the Rules of Procedure, and in exercise of its powers of international judicial protection of human rights, an issue of international public order that transcends the will of the parties, the Court must ensure that acts of acknowledgement of responsibility are acceptable for the objectives sought by the interAmerican system. In this task, the Court is not limited to merely verifying, recording or taking note of the acknowledgment made by the State, or to verifying the formal conditions of the said decisions; rather, it must relate them to the nature and seriousness of the alleged violations, the demands and interests of justice, the particular circumstances of the specific case, and the attitude and position of the parties,5 in such a way that it is able to elucidate, insofar as possible and in the exercise of its competence, the truth of what happened.6 Furthermore, the evolution of the human rights protection system now allows 5 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 Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and reparations. Judgment of June 27, 2012. Series C No. 245, para. 26. 6 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 Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, supra, para. 26. 11