the case, the Court finds that the dispute over the facts and the pleadings with respect to the violations of the following rights contained in the American Convention has been resolved: rights to life (Article 4(1)), personal integrity (Article 5(1)), judicial guarantees (Article 8(1)), and judicial protection (Article 25), all of the above read in conjunction with the general duty to respect rights (Article 1(1)) and to adopt domestic legal effects (Article 2), to the detriment of Walter Gonzalo Huacón Baidal, Mercedes Eugenia Salazar Cueva, Mary del Pilar Chancay Quimis (widow of Walter Gonzalo Huacón Baidal), Wilson Eduardo Huacón Baidal (partner of Ms. Mercedes Eugenia Salazar Cueva at the time of the facts), Karent Lisset Huacón Chancay (daughter of Walter Gonzalo Huacón Baidal), Walther Bryan Huacón Chancay (son of Walter Gonzalo Huacón Baidal), Wilson Fabián Huacón Salazar (son of Mercedes Eugenia Salazar Cueva), Karla Fernanda Huacón Salazar (daughter of Mercedes Eugenia Salazar Cueva), and Kerlly Mercedes Huacón Salazar (daughter of Mercedes Eugenia Salazar Cueva). 24. The Court also welcomes the parties’ willingness and efforts to reach a friendly settlement agreement, which also reflect Ecuador's willingness to make full reparations for the harm caused to the victims by the violations in this case and to prevent it from being repeated. The Court also notes that when parties reach agreements, it contributes to the aims of the inter-American human rights protection system, specifically the aim of finding fair solutions to a case’s specific problems. 12 This also makes it possible to provide comprehensive reparations for the violations that harmed the victims more quickly than if the litigation before this Court had been allowed to fully run its course. As on other occasions, 13 in order to contribute to fulfilling this purpose, the Court issues this judgment in the shortest time possible. 25. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds, as on prior occasions, 14 that the friendly settlement agreement and the acknowledgment of responsibility have full legal effects in this case. 26. Regarding the measures of reparation described in the agreement reached by the State and the victims and their representatives, the Court approves them pursuant to the terms of this judgment (infra Chapter VI), as they contribute to the aim and purpose of the American Convention. The Court will analyze the measures in order to determine their scope and forms of execution. C.2 Considerations on William Huacón 27. According to the Report on the Merits, William Huacón is the cousin of Walter Gonzalo Huacón Baidal and one of the persons identified by the Commission as a victim in the case. 15 At the time, the representatives (supra footnote 7) explicitly indicated that they were representing William Huacón. The friendly settlement agreement did not Cf. 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 Miskito Divers (Lemoth Morris et al.) v. Honduras, supra, para. 19. 12 Case of García Cruz and Sánchez Silvestre v. United Mexican States, supra, para. 22; and Case of the Miskito Divers (Lemoth Morris et al.) v. Honduras, supra, para. 23. 13 Cf. Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment dated February 7, 2006. Series C No. 144, paras. 176 to 180; Case of Torres Millacura et al. v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 26, 2011. Series C No. 229, para. 37; Case of Pacheco Teruel et al. v. Honduras, supra, para. 19, Case of García Cruz and Sánchez Silvestre v. United Mexican States, supra, para. 23. 14 15 As shown in paragraphs 9, 77, 82, and 83 of the Merits Report. 8