11 23. The Commission appreciated the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility, together with its previous acknowledgement made during the hearing before the Commission. Although it initially formulated certain observations on that acknowledgement, in light of the comments made by the State during the public hearing, the Commission considered that the factual and legal dispute has ceased. Likewise, the Commission reiterated its satisfaction at the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility and considered that its apology was very significant. Nevertheless, it asked the Court to make a determination in its judgment regarding the context of the facts of the case and the legal consequences in light of the American Convention, clearly establishing all of the State’s obligations for the future. With regard to reparations, the Commission considered that “the main challenge posed by this case [involves] overcoming the dissociation between the willingness expressed through the acknowledgement of responsibility and the real situation that the families of the victims in this case continue to experience.” The Commission pointed out that although the State initially acknowledged its responsibility in 2009, so far its good will has not “translated into a comprehensive response that includes the components of truth, justice and reparation.” The Commission therefore requested that, as part of the reparations, the Court require the State to provide a specific assessment of the structural problems and define measures to address these. 24. The representatives, in turn, also considered positive the State’s acknowledgement in admitting both the alleged violation of rights and the factual arguments outlined. However, they argued that the State’s expressions of good faith “need to be complemented with even more decisive measures and actions to improve the situation of social and natural vulnerability in which the victims find themselves.” They added that they hoped to obtain, through the Court’s judgment, structural measures of reparation that would lead to true redress and access to the truth of what happened. Furthermore, the representatives considered that such recognition should imply a response, at all levels of public administration, with the integrality, compassion, diligence and proportionality required by the victims’ moral and pecuniary situation “as survivors of crimes against humanity.” In their final arguments, the representatives “celebrated the State’s acceptance of the facts because, from a psychological and legal point of view, it signifies the satisfaction of the victims’ demands for justice, to be heard and to have their credibility recognized, in addition to an apology by State representatives within an international litigation process, after enduring decades of disparagement and without receiving any level of attention to their status as victims.” The representatives considered that the measures of reparation should be comprehensive and that for the victims “it would be frustrating not to obtain concrete measures to change their living conditions.” Considerations of the Court 25. In accordance with Articles 6217 and 6418 of the Rules of Procedure 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 the Court’s responsibility to ensure that acts of acquiescence are acceptable for the purposes sought by the Inter-American system. This task is not limited to verifying, recording or taking note of the acknowledgement made by the State, or to confirming the formal conditions of such acts; rather, it must examine them in keeping with the nature and seriousness of the alleged violations, the requirements and interests of justice, the particular 17 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 upon its juridical effects. 18 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.