18 b) It is obvious in this case that, despite the pertinent efforts of the parties, a friendly settlement was not reached, because the representatives withdrew and because the State indicated that it could not accept it. Consequently, it is incomprehensible that the State should request the application of Article 49 of the American Convention to avoid the Court hearing the merits of the case; c) Bearing in mind that the alleged victims are the fundamental purpose of the Inter-American System, the representatives’ declaration that the granting of the birth certificates by the State did not constitute a friendly settlement is a determining factor. This procedure was important for resolving the instant case, but it is not the only matter under discussion. Since one of the parties to the procedure manifested that it did not wish to continue with the negotiations to reach a friendly settlement, the Commission had no alternative but to proceed to examine the merits of the case, pursuant to the provisions of Article 50(1) of the Convention; d) Although the State took certain steps designed to remedy at least in part the violations committed to the detriment of the alleged victims – the importance of which was duly acknowledged by the Commission – these steps did not constitute comprehensive, adequate and, above all, final reparation, and e) It had complied with its treaty-based, statutory and regulatory obligations in relation to the friendly settlement procedure in this case, so that the arguments presented by the State in this regard are unfounded. Arguments of the representatives 68. The representatives stated that: a) The State unilaterally granted the children birth certificates in September 2001, outside the framework of a friendly settlement. This action did not resolve the case, because it will not be resolved until the alleged human rights violations have been acknowledged and totally repaired. In addition to the delivery of birth certificates, the friendly settlement proposal included the following points: financial compensation, public acknowledgement of the violations allegedly committed, modification of the requirements for late registration of births, and establishment of a judicial mechanism for resolving complaints. However, each attempt failed, owing to the State’s reluctance to repair the alleged violations comprehensively, and b) The Dominican Republic has never acknowledged its responsibility for the violations that were allegedly committed; it denied this in the proceeding before the Commission, and it is now denying it before the Court. Considerations of the Court 69. The Court observes that the Commission indicated that on November 1, 1999, it made itself available to the parties in order to reach a friendly settlement. On December 1, 1999, and on January 11, 2000, the State and the representatives, respectively, agreed to accept this procedure. On March 1, 2000, the representatives submitted a proposal for a friendly settlement that contained various demands. On