9 The representatives also emphasized that it was important that the Court “give a detailed account of the facts” when delivering judgment, as it had requested in its brief with observations on the answer to the application (supra para. 22). Finally, the representatives requested the Court to endorse the agreement on reparations signed on December 6, 2004, after ensuring its compatibility with the provisions of the Convention. Should the Court consider that this agreement was not “valid to oblige the State internationally, [… they requested] the Court to convene a hearing on reparations that would permit it to obtain the necessary information to rule on the method and time limit for complying with the measures of reparation accepted by the State [in its] acquiescence.” 35. On February 3, 2005, on the instructions of the President, the Secretariat granted the Commission a non-extendable period of five days to present any observations it deemed pertinent on the last communication of the representatives. 36. On February 14, 2005, the Commission presented its brief with observations “on the friendly settlement procedure in [the instant] case,” in which it “consider[ed] that it would not be pertinent for the organs of the inter-American system for the protection of human rights to rule on the validity of an agreement on reparations under Peruvian law” and requested the Court: (1) to accept the State’s acquiescence; (2) to take note of the efforts being made by the State and the representatives of […] the [alleged] victim [and his next of kin] to reach a consensus on all the elements of reparation that were not included in the State’s acquiescence, and also those that must be modified in the agreement; (3) to grant the parties a prudent time of two months to carry out these efforts; (4) to establish that, if the prudent time referred to in the preceding clause […] expires and they have not reached a common position, it will declare that the procedure has been exhausted and open the corresponding reparations stage.” 37. On February 16, 2005, the State presented a brief with “comments on the communication with observations on the invalidity of the agreement on reparations and its appendix, presented by the organizations representing the alleged victim and his next of kin” (supra para. 34). In this brief, the State again requested that the Court should “declare that the disputed agreement and its appendix were legally invalid, even though it reiterated to the Court its undertaking to honor the commitment made in the brief answering the application” (supra paras. 20, 30 and 32). The State also affirmed that it had not “present[ed] observations on the obligation to investigate, but rather on the violation of the right to presumption of innocence[, …] an observation that [had been] accepted by [the] representatives in their brief with observations” (supra paras. 32 and 34). With regard to their request to modify the clause referring to the investigation into the facts of this case, the State considered that the “drafting of this clause tacitly admit[ted] the validity of the arguments expressed in the Peruvian State’s brief expanding on its previous brief” (supra para. 32). 38. On February 24, 2005, on the instructions of the President, the Secretariat requested the State to submit, as helpful evidence, a copy of the following documents: Legislative Decree No. 728, entitled “Employment Promotion Act”; Decree-Law No. 25593, entitled “Collective Labor Relations Act”; and Supreme Decree No. 011-92-TR, which regulates Decree-Law No. 25593. 39. On March 2, 2005, the State forwarded the Peruvian laws that had been requested as helpful evidence.