6 was also investigated and for the benefit of whom the statute of limitations also ran out, so that the charges against him also lapsed. 14. Pursuant to Articles 53(2) and 55 of the Rules of Procedure, in exercising its inherent powers for the international judicial protection of human rights, the Court may determine if an acknowledgment of international responsibility effected by a respondent State provides enough grounds, in the terms of the American Convention, to proceed, or not, to dispose of the merits and to determine reparations and costs. To such effects, the Tribunal is to analyze the situation in each specific case.9 For that reason, the Court proceeds to precisely construe the partial acknowledgment of international responsibility effected by the State and the scope of the subsistent dispute. * * * 15. In its application the Commission exposed that the State incurred in the violation of Articles 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection), in relation to Articles 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) and 2 (Domestic Legal Effects), all of them of the American Convention (supra para. 4). The representatives coincided in that those same provisions had been violated, although on some different grounds, and additionally alleged violation of Articles 4 (Right to Life), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 13 (Freedom of Thought and Expression) and 17 (Rights of the Family) of the Convention (supra para. 5). 16. As it has been said, at the public hearing the State acknowledged negligence and omission by State authorities for not having carried out with the extradition of Dr. Espinoza-Cuesta on their own motion, and acquiesced to the charge of having violated Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention (supra para. 10). Furthermore, it pointed out the significance of this case to update medical malpractice legislation and declared such amendments to be worth the “great effort required to adequately conform both the substantive and the procedural statutory contents, as well as the rules and regulations, on which the State is to act in the future.” Likewise, in its final written arguments it dealt expressly with its lack of compliance with Article 2 of the Convention (supra para. 11). 17. As to the facts, the Court observes that the State confessed to an omission by the State authorities, for their not having, on their own motion, gone through the procedures relating to the extradition of one of the accused in the criminal proceedings undertaken before its domestic jurisdiction in the current case. Therefore, it declares such fact to be no longer in dispute, and holds it to be established in the aforementioned terms (supra para. 16). 18. On the other hand, the other facts alleged in the application and relating to the investigation and determination of the circumstances attending the death of Laura Albán, with regard to the procedures undergone in the civil and criminal 9 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack-Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 105; Case of Zambrano-Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 12; and Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 9.