6 7. Establish a time limit for the representatives and the State to reach agreement on the method and the time limits for complying with the reparations and on the amount of the compensation and costs. They also requested that the Court, “continue with the reparations proceedings and determine the method of complying with them[,] and also the amount of the compensation and costs, should no agreement be reached with the State.” Moreover, they clarified that “the violation of the right to protection of honor and dignity (Article 11 of the Convention), had not been invoked in [their requests and arguments brief] as a right that had been violated in this case.” 23. On November 12, 2004, after an extension had been granted, the Commission presented its observations on the brief answering the application (supra para. 20), in which it “respond[ed] positively to the Peruvian State’s acquiescence, to the extent that it is an acknowledgement of the State’s international responsibility for the violations committed by its organs to the detriment of Pedro Huilca Tecse and his next of kin.” The Commission requested the Court to include a “detailed account of the facts.” In relation to Article 11 (Right to Privacy) of the Convention, for which the State also accepted responsibility even though neither the Commission, in the application, nor the representatives had alleged [its violation], the Commission “consider[ed] it pertinent for the Court to decide whether it was admissible pursuant to its powers.” Regarding reparations, the Commission stated that “the State’s acquiescence [was] sufficient to consider that Peru ha[d] accepted the claims of the next of kin [of the alleged victim,] concerning the type of reparations that were in order.” The Commission also requested “the Court to set a time limit for the representatives and the State to reach an agreement on the amount of the pecuniary reparations and costs” and the methods of compliance and, should the representatives and the State not reach an agreement on reparations, it “should establish a date for the Court to [receive] the evidence offered in this regard.” 24. On November 18, 2004, on the instructions of the President, the Secretariat granted until November 23, 2004, for the Commission and the representatives to inform the Court whether, after having heard the arguments of the parties, they still required a public hearing on the merits of the case to be convened. On November 19, 2004, the State was given this information. 25. On November 19, 2004, the representatives stated that “[i]n view of the terms of the State’s acquiescence, […] it would not be necessary for the Court to convene a public hearing on merits[, since the] dispute concerning the facts and the rights violated ha[d] ceased.” It also reiterated to the Court its request that a time limit should be established for reaching an “agreement on the method and the time limit for complying with the measures of reparation requested by the representatives and accepted by the State, and also on the amount of the compensation and costs.” In addition, they requested that, should this agreement not be reached, the Court continue with the proceedings and convene a public hearing on reparations. 26. On November 23, 2004, the Commission advised that “a public hearing would not be necessary” in this case, because the Court had “all the necessary elements to deliver judgment on merits.” 27. On November 24, 2004, the State informed the Court that “it did not require a public hearing on merits to be convened in the instant case, because the Peruvian State ha[d] acquiesced to all the elements of the application; and, in this regard,