10 to liberty, life and physical integrity” recognized, inter alia, in the American Convention on Human Rights and the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, international instruments that were in force at the time when the events occurred. In this regard, it understood that the State acknowledged its “responsibility for the violation of Articles 4, 5 and 7 of the American Convention, together with the other instruments invoked,” appreciated the State’s acceptance of its international responsibility in relation to these aspects of the case and granted full effects to this acknowledgement. Nevertheless, the Commission noted that Peru’s acceptance of responsibility was expressed in general terms, in relation to 14 of the fifteen victims, without subsequently referring to said acceptance of responsibility. Nor did the State specify “to which specific facts [the acknowledgement] applied��� and did not accept responsibility regarding the claims presented in relation to Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. Likewise, and in a different sense, it pointed out that in the context of the proceedings before it, in “September 1991, that is, two months after the events occurred, the State indicated that had been able to determine that 14 members of the Santa Bárbara peasant community had been detained on July 4, 1991, and that up to that moment they were missing, since it had not been proven that the remains found in the Rodeo Pampa [sic] sector belong to the missing persons”. Subsequently, the State did not contradict the classification of the facts of this case as forced disappearance. At the public hearing, the Commission “consider[ed] that there is […] a State acknowledgement of the facts of the case,” since Peru “assumes as the factual framework of the case the decisions of the National Criminal Chamber and, subsequently, of the Supreme Court of Justice,” and that such acknowledgement should be effective under the Court’s Rules of Procedure. It also pointed out that “it is for the […] Court to determine the legal classification of the facts under the American Convention without the articles invoked by the State limiting that classification.” 22. In their pleadings and motions brief, the representatives requested that the Court, when assessing the State’s international responsibility, take into account the latter’s acknowledgement of responsibility before the Commission, and that even if the Court should consider that this acknowledgement puts an end to the dispute regarding this part of the proceeding, it should examine in detail the facts to which this case refers, as well as the rights that were violated as a result of their occurrence, since such analysis “constitutes a form of reparation for the victims and their next of kin and, in turn, contributes to the preservation of the historical memory, to prevent a repetition of similar facts and to satisfy the purposes of the inter-American jurisdiction on human rights.” At the hearing, the representatives recalled that “in response to an acknowledgement of responsibility, such as that made by the State, it is still incumbent upon the Court to make a legal assessment” of the facts of the case. In their final written arguments, they pointed out that, in response to Judge Ferrer Mac-Gregor’s question during the public hearing, the State recognized that Articles 4, 5 and 7 of the Convention had been violated. They also noted that the State did not dispute the central facts of the case and that it did not invoke the acknowledgement in order to limit the scope of the examination of the rights that were violated. B. Considerations of the Court 23. In accordance with Articles 62 and 64 of the Rules of Procedure, 6 and in exercise of its powers of international judicial protection of human rights, a matter of international public order that transcends the will of the parties, it is incumbent on this Court to ensure that acts of acquiescence are acceptable for the purposes sought by the inter-American system. This task is 6 Articles 62 and 64 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure establish: “Article 62. Acquiescence: if the respondent informs the Court of its acceptance of the facts or its total or partial acquiescence to the claims stated in the presentation of the case or the brief submitted by the alleged victims or their representatives, the Court shall decide, having heard the opinions of all those participating in the proceedings and at the appropriate procedural moment, whether to accept that acquiescence, and shall rule on its juridical effects.” “Article 64. Continuation of a Case: Bearing in mind its responsibility to protect human rights the Court may decide to continue the consideration of a case, notwithstanding the existence of the conditions indicated in the preceding Articles.”