2 security and peace, which can never be a valid argument to disregard, suppress or reduce the basic rights of the individual. In the face of any manifestation of authoritarianism, it is necessary to reaffirm that the protection of human rights is – and has always been, as revealed by the writings of the Enlightenment, in Europe and in America – the goal to which political organization is directed and the reference point to verify both the State’s ethical commitments and the legitimacy of the conduct of its agents. 5. Our Court has also examined and ruled on facts that affect access to justice; namely, the preservation of and respect for judicial guarantees and jurisdictional measures for the protection of the fundamental rights. This access implies both the ability and the possibility of having recourse to bodies that provide justice independently, impartially and competently, of formulating claims, contributing or requesting evidence and arguing in favor of interests and rights (procedural justice), and also of obtaining a final judgment that satisfies the substantive requirements of justice (substantive justice). Without the latter, justice would be sterile: the simple appearance of justice, an ineffective instrument that does not produce the result for which it was conceived. Consequently, both manifestations of access to justice must be emphasized: procedural and substantive, and all actions must be channeled so that both aspects can be achieved. 6. Access to justice, one of the outstanding issues of contemporary life, presumes the clarification of unlawful facts, the timely correction and reparation of the violations committed, the re-establishment of conditions of peace with justice, and the appeasement of the public conscience, troubled by the fact that the law has been broken, as a general control of conduct and the subjective rights recognized to individuals, and as a measure for all individuals to achieve their potential. This case, as others which have been heard by the Court, provides a dramatic example of the harm to which effective judicial protection is subjected, in conditions that also have singular characteristics. II. ACTS OF ACCEPTANCE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT BY THE STATE 7. Faced with the attribution of facts and the submission of the respective claims, through the exercise of the international procedural action on human rights, the defendant States may file objections and a defense or acknowledge such facts and claims through juridical acts that produce certain substantive and procedural effects. In addition to discontinuance, which is incumbent on the plaintiff in the proceeding, the norms of the inter-American jurisdiction establish the “acquiescence (of the defendant) to the claims of the party who has brought the case” (Article 52(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights) and also stipulate “the existence of a friendly settlement, compromise, or any other occurrence likely to lead to a settlement of the dispute” (Article 53 of the same Rules of Procedure). 8. For the effects of the instant case and others that have been submitted or may be submitted to the Inter-American Court, it should be noted that the conduct of one party or the agreement of both does not necessarily bind the Court, which has a greater commitment to factual truth and the effective protection of human rights than to formal truth and the apparent protection of human rights. Indeed, the jurisdictional organ may order that consideration of a case should continue, “taking into account the responsibilities vested in it to protect human rights,” even though