American Commission and the representatives have submitted their arguments and claims throughout the process. In this regard, the final written arguments are not the appropriate procedural moment for submitting an argument of this nature. Therefore, the Court will not give legal effect to the State’s refusal to acknowledge the violation of the right to freedom of residence. 26. Furthermore, since the violation of the right to freedom of movement was alleged by the Commission and the representatives in their briefs submitting the case and with pleadings and motions, respectively (supra para. 4), and in light of the particular seriousness of the facts and violations alleged in this case, the Court admits the acquiescence to the violation of the right to freedom of movement made by the State in its final written arguments, as it has in other cases in which the States have indicated their acknowledgment of responsibility at different procedural stages prior to the delivery of the respective judgment.9 27. In view of the fact that the proceedings before this Court refer to the protection of human rights, an issue of international public order that transcends the will of the parties, the Court must ensure that acts of acquiescence are acceptable to the objectives sought by the inter-American system. In this task, it is not limited to merely 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. 28. The Court assesses positively the State’s willingness to acknowledge partially its international responsibility, owing to its significance within the framework of the interAmerican system for the protection of human rights. It makes a positive contribution to the development of these proceedings, to respect for the principles that inspire the Convention10 and, in part, to satisfaction of the needs for reparation of the victims of human rights violations.11 Therefore, the Court accepts the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility for the violations indicated in paragraph 17 of this Judgment. Nevertheless, the dispute remains with regard to the alleged violations indicated in paragraph 18, regarding the determination of the presumed victims and some of the representatives’ claims for reparation. In addition, considering the gravity of the alleged facts and of the violations, the Court will proceed to make an extensive and detailed determination of the facts that took place relating to the human rights violations acknowledged by the State, because this contributes to making reparation to the victims, preventing the repetition of similar facts and, in brief, satisfying the objectives of the inter-American human rights jurisdiction.12 Consequently, the Court will make the corresponding rulings in Chapters V and VII to XIV of this Judgment. 9 Cf. Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 7, 2006. Series C No. 144, paras. 176 to 180; Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra, para. 14; Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 30, 2010 Series C No. 215, para. 16; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010. Series C No. 216, para. 16; Case of Pacheco Teruel et al. v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 27, 2012. Series C No. 241, para. 19, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, supra, para. 23. 10 Cf. Case of El Caracazo v. Venezuela. Merits. Judgment of November 11, 1999. Series C No. 58, para. 43, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, supra, para. 29. 11 Cf. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra, para. 18, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, supra, para. 29. 12 Cf. Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2008. Series C No. 190, para. 26, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, supra, para. 30. 13