17 fulfilled their duty to investigate and make reparations to the alleged victims, it may not be necessary for the Court to analyze the violation of substantive rights. However, having alleged a failure to observe those obligations, the Court considers that, as in other cases, 30 the State’s arguments should be analyzed in the Chapter on Reparations infra. Therefore, the Court dismisses this preliminary objection. V PARTIAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY A. Partial acknowledgement of responsibility by the State and observations of the Commission and the representatives 51. At the public hearing, the State proposed a friendly settlement agreement and indicated that this “should be interpreted as an acknowledgement of State responsibility for not complying with Articles 8 on judicial guarantees and 25 on judicial protection under the Convention.” “Given that the investigation into the facts of the instant case has so far not produced positive results, it invit[ed] the parties to create a commission to oversee and evaluate the pending proceedings […].”On the other hand, in its response, Guatemala maintained that “at no time [did] it intend to deny that the facts […]occurred or deny that the State is responsible if there has been malice, negligence or institutional fault or that of public officials or employees; nor […] that the State is evading its obligation to compensate the victims.” However, it requested that the Court refrain from ruling on this matter since it lacks jurisdiction to examine such facts. 52. At the public hearing and in their final written arguments, the representatives rejected the proposal for a friendly settlement and requested that legal effect be given to “the State’s acceptance of international responsibility dated July 2[9], 2011” 31 before the Commission and to the acknowledgement of international responsibility made at the public hearing. They stated that, “although […] it was not expressly indicated,” it can be interpreted that the State recognized its international responsibility in relation to the violations alleged and substantiated by the petitioners and that “the acknowledgement […] covers all the facts of this case.” They also requested that the Court consider what was indicated in the State's answering brief. 53. The Commission did not specifically refer to the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility under Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention at the public hearing. However, it referred to the acknowledgement of responsibility made by the State before the Commission and to the alleged reiteration of said acknowledgement in the answering brief, in the context of the preliminary objection ratione temporis filed by Guatemala (supra para. 15). B. Considerations of the Court reparations and costs. Judgment of October 15, 2014. Series C No. 286. para. 137. 30 Cf. Case of the Rio Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, para. 296; Case of the Displaced Afrodescendant Communities of the Cacarica River Basin (Operation Genesis) v. Colombia, paras. 469 to 476, and Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (Disappeared of the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia, para. 548. 31 In a brief dated July 29, 2011, submitted in the proceeding before the Commission, Guatemala stated that, “considering that the President of the Republic […] has apologized on behalf of the State to the families of some victims for the anguish and pain caused during the internal armed conflict, […]in the present case it accepts its international responsibility for the violations alleged and substantiated by the petitioners, from the execution of the facts up to the present date, with respect to the victims fully identified, and whose rights have been violated as proven through the files opened before the national justice institutions, and with respect to the individualized victims documented in the Report of the Commission for Historical Clarification.” (evidence file, folio 3159).