16 recognition of responsibility. A process of friendly settlement, in the view of the State of Argentina, is a preferable option […] that demonstrates political willingness to seek a dispute settlement by non-adjudicatory means[.] Recognition of international responsibility is a much more complex route that requires action, interaction, expression of opinions and a final decision by a variety of government agencies, something that certainly did not occur in this case. Moreover, […] this process of friendly settlement began on the basis of a potential legislative reform that did [occur] later as part of a different case [(Correa Belisle)], undertaken at a petitioner’s request[. Later, in the] public hearing that took place during the 119th Regular Period of Sessions of the Commission, […] the State of Argentina formally [set] in writing its political will to proceed in this direction. The simple fact that the State should sit at the table in good faith to negotiate a possible friendly settlement cannot in any case be held to constitute acquiescence.” 53. The Court, exercising its inherent authority for international protection of human rights, can decide whether an acknowledgment of international responsibility by a respondent State before the bodies of the inter-American system offers sufficient basis, in terms of the American Convention, to proceed or not with its hearing on the merits and establishment of possible reparations.41 To this end, the Court's practice is to examine the particular situation of each specific case. 54. First, the Court deems necessary to emphasize that the processing of each individual complaint seeking a jurisdictional decision by the Court requires the protection system established by the American Convention to work as an institutional whole. Before a contentious case can be brought before the Court alleging human rights violations by a State Party that has recognized the Court’s contentious jurisdiction, a proceeding must be instituted before the Commission, and it begins when a petition is filed with the Commission. 42 The proceeding before the Commission provides safeguards both for the respondent government and for the alleged victims, their next of kin or their representatives, among which safeguards it is worth underscoring those concerning the requirements for the admissibility of the petition and those concerning the principles of adversarial procedure, procedural equality and juridical certainty.43 It is during the proceeding before the Commission that the respondent State initially submits the information, allegations and evidence it deems relevant to the petition, and the evidence rendered in adversarial procedures may later be added to the case file before the Court. 55. In the instant case, the friendly settlement mechanism began during the proceedings before the Commission, but when the parties failed to reach agreement, the process was suspended at the request of the petitioner. The Court should clarify, with regard to friendly settlement procedures, that a State’s participation in such does not mean it has accepted responsibility for the human rights violations held against it. Acts taken by the State in the framework of a friendly settlement process cannot be held as an acquiescence or recognition of responsibility in the terms of article 62 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. The situation is different from that of precedent cases adjudged by the Court in which certain States have 41 Cfr. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, par. 105, and Case of Acevedo Jaramillo v. Peru. Preliminary objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 7, 2006. Series C No. 144, par. 173. 42 Cfr. In the matter of Viviana Gallardo et al. Series A No. G 101/81, Whereas clauses 12(b), 16, 20, 21 and 22, and Case of Acevedo Jaramillo v. Peru, par. 174. 43 Cfr. Control of due process in the exercise of the powers of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (Articles 41 and 44 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-19/05 of November 28, 2005. Series A No.19, par. 25 to 27, and Case of Acevedo Jaramillo v. Peru, par. 174.