12 of this contestation, before ruling on the legal effects of the State’s acquiescence (supra para. 20), regarding which the parties are in agreement (supra paras. 22, 23, 30, 32 and 37). 52. First, it is important to observe that the State representative who signed the agreement in question, Mr. Salas Lozada, was the agent in this case appointed by the competent Peruvian authorities (supra para. 18). Pursuant to Article 21 of the Rules of Procedure, the State granted full powers of representation to Mr. Salas Lozada in the instant case. From the documents of the proceedings before the Court, it is clear that Supreme Resolution No. 183-2004-RE (supra para. 18), appointing the State’s agent who signed the agreement, was issued by the President of the Republic of Peru and ratified by the President of the Council of Ministers responsible for the foreign affairs portfolio and by the Minister of Justice, and had been published in the official gazette El Peruano on June 4, 2004. This resolution did not contain any limitation to the powers of representation of Mr. Salas Lozada; to the contrary, the preambular paragraphs indicated: […] That, the current governmental policy on human rights is designed to comply with the provisions of the Constitution and the international instruments on this matter to which the Peruvian State is a party; That, the position of the State, in the judicial proceedings filed against it before the said Inter-American Court, should be in keeping with the Government’s concern for ensuring that the actions of the State are coherent with its undertakings in the area of human rights; That, in this regard, the agents of the State should give preference, insofar as possible, to seeking a friendly settlement in the judicial proceedings being processed by the InterAmerican Court[.] (the original is not underlined) 53. According to Articles 2(1) and 21(1) of the Rules of Procedure and the Court’s practice, the agent that the State designates to act before the Court represents the State completely at all stages of the proceedings before the Court. There was no irregularity in the Supreme Resolution appointing the agent who signed the agreement on the methods and time limits for complying with reparations in this case, or in its subsequent presentation to the Court (supra para. 18). Moreover, the appointment was in force until December 20, 2004, the date on which, pursuant to Article 21(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court was advised that the State’s agent had been substituted (supra para. 30). Consequently, all the actions of the said agent up until the date of his substitution had the usual legal effects in this case. 54. Nevertheless, at some time following the presentation of the requests and arguments brief (supra para. 19), the State’s acquiescence (supra para. 20), and the presentation of the said agreement to the Court (supra para. 28), Peru contested the latter, because it had not been drawn up within the “framework of the practice of the Peruvian State,” since “the corresponding Peruvian authorities had not been informed, and [it had] not been adopted observing the regular administrative channels as in previous cases of the same nature” before the Court (supra paras. 30 and 32). 55. The Court has taken note of the contestation of this agreement and considers that the State’s arguments are based above all on domestic issues and practices. In the instant case, if the agent was unquestionably empowered to acquiesce – which has been accepted by the State – he was also empowered to carry out certain procedural acts arising from the acquiescence, such as an agreement on the