The parties agree that the facts which constitute the factual basis of this Agreement and, therefore, the acknowledgment of the responsibility of the State of Mexico, are those proven facts as determined by the Commission in its Report No. 138/11 of October 31, 2011. They are the same facts that form an integral part of this agreement. Based on these facts, the State of Mexico acknowledges that it is responsible for the violation of the rights contained in the American Convention: personal liberty (Article 7), humane treatment (Article 5), right to a fair trial and judicial protection (Articles 8 and 25), all of the above in relation to the general obligation to respect rights in Article 1(1); for the violation of provisions of 1, 8 and 10 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, and for the violation of the obligation to adopt domestic legal provisions (Article 2 of the American Convention), in connection with Article 6 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture), all these violations to the detriment of the victims. The State of Mexico makes this acknowledgment in relation to all the facts contained in the Report on Merits No. 138/11, including those prior to the acknowledgment of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction. 13. In the settlement the parties also agreed that Mexico should comply with several measures of “comprehensive reparation” for the violations committed in this case to the detriment of Juan García Cruz and Santiago Sánchez Silvestre (infra paras. 63 to 102) and should grant two measures of “good faith” in favor of the daughter and wife of Mr. Sánchez Silvestre. In addition, the “terms of compliance and supervision” were agreed upon. In this regard, the State made a commitment to abide by the terms of the […] Agreement […] by means of a mechanism that promotes dialogue and the involvement of the beneficiaries […] in the actions taken for these purposes.” 14. For their part, in this agreement “[the] victims and their representatives acknowledged the Mexican State’s institutional efforts and willingness to resolve this case through amicable negotiation, reflected especially in its acknowledgment of [the] facts and legal consequences which occurred prior to the date of recognition of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction.” In addition, during the formal signing of the agreement, CEJIL stated that this act reflected the goals of the inter-American system, in which the protection of the victims’ human rights and the compensation for violations committed against them is crucial. 15. Also, in the aforementioned agreement, the parties made a “joint request” to the Court “to develop international standards” on two substantive issues.13 B) Observations of the Commission 16. In its observations (supra para. 9), the Commission expressed its “satisfaction with the agreement […] signed by the parties,” and “evaluate[d] very positively the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility based on the legal and factual rulings of the Report on Merits.” It also noted that, “the measures of reparation agreed by the parties include different components of a comprehensive reparation scheme, under terms of the Court’s jurisprudence.” 13 The request was made in the following terms: “[in] spite of the fact that in this case the dispute regarding the facts of the case and the international responsibility of the State of Mexico has ended, and that the corresponding reparations have been agreed upon, there is still a need to develop case law on the right to judicial guarantees so that the events which occurred in this case are not repeated. Therefore both parties request that the Judgment issued by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights develop international standards on the guarantees that should be respected in order to give evidentiary value to a confession, and on the application of the principle of procedural immediacy in light of the guarantees contemplated in the American Convention on Human Rights.” Subsequently, in a written communication of November 19, 2013, (supra para. 8), the representatives referred to the importance of the joint request made in the agreement for the development of “international standards regarding the evidentiary value of confessions and the Mexican doctrine of procedural immediacy.” In this regard, they “emphasize[d] that, as the parties have acknowledged in the aforementioned agreement, the development of these standards will help to prevent a repetition of events such as those that occurred in this case” and “recall[ed] that the use of confessions obtained through torture is a constant in the Mexican judicial system and that this practice is encouraged by the Mexican doctrine of procedural immediacy.” Furthermore, they emphasized that the inclusion of this clause is of such importance for the victims and their representatives that during the negotiation of the friendly settlement agreement, its inclusion was considered as a condition sine qua non to reach an amicable settlement of this matter.” 6