10 V PRIOR CONSIDERATIONS 40. First, the Court recalls that, pursuant to Chapter V of the Rules of Procedure, proceedings before it may conclude in different ways; namely, by a judgment on merits, by discontinuance by the petitioner, by the defendant’s acquiescence to the petitioner’s claims, and also by a friendly settlement, conciliation or any other act that is appropriate to settle a dispute. 41. In this case, the State, in is answer to the application “ACQUIESCE[D] to the claims of the petitioner and the representatives of the [alleged] victim [and his next of kin]” (supra para. 20). In addition, it affirmed that it “also acquiesce[d] to the application with regard to civil reparation and costs, specifically that Peru should reimburse completely the [alleged] victims of the violated human rights that are the subject of the application.” 42. When faced with an acquiescence, as in this case, the Court, in the exercise of its inherent powers for the international protection of human rights, must determine whether the acknowledgement of international responsibility made by the defendant State offers a basis, in the terms of the American Convention, for continuing to hear the merits, or whether it should proceed to determine possible reparations, pursuant to Articles 53(2) and 55 of the Rules of Procedure.4 43. The Court observes that in this brief answering the application, the State “request[ed] a FRIENDLY SETTLEMENT,” in accordance with Article 54 of the Rules of Procedure” (supra para. 20). Since acquiescence and friendly settlement are two different ways of concluding a proceeding, they cannot co-exist. Acquiescence consists in a unilateral declaration of the will of the State and friendly settlement is an agreement reached by the parties to a dispute. In this case, since the State has acquiesced to the claims of the petitioner and the representatives, the Court can only understand this proposal for a “friendly settlement” as a request by the State to reach an agreement between the parties on the methods and time limits for complying with the reparations, which derives from and is a consequence of the acquiescence. 44. Following the State’s acquiescence (supra para. 20), the representatives and Peru reached an agreement on the methods and time limits for complying with the reparations, which was presented to the Court by the State on December 9, 2004 (supra para. 28), and two days later by the representatives of the alleged victim and his next of kin (supra para. 29). 45. In briefs of December 20, 2004, and January 7, 2005, Peru advised the Court that it had appointed a new State agent for the case, María de Lourdes Zamudio Salinas, in place of Gonzalo José Salas Lozada (supra paras. 30 and 32). Also, in addition to “reiterat[ing] its commitment to honor the undertaking expressed in the brief answering the application in which it acquiesce[d] to the claims of the petitioners,” the State informed the Court of “the invalidity of the ‘friendly settlement 4 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 105.