5 Germán Escué Zapata in order to alleviate the emptiness and the pain caused by the tragic loss and also, undertakes to, sincerely, strengthen the measures that have been adopting in order to avoid that painful events like these from repeating and so that any Colombian family have to endure these situations again. This acknowledgment constitutes a confirmation of what has been expressed by the State before the Inter-American system, without prejudice to the offer made in the respond to the application, of performing a public act in order for the Colombian society, as a whole, know the truth of the facts, if this honorable Court allows so. 13. The Commission and the representatives positively value the partial acknowledgment of the international responsibility made by the State. 14. Under the provisions of Articles 53(2) and 55 of the Rules of Procedure, in the exercise of its inherent powers of international legal protection of human rights, the Court may determine if an acknowledgment of international responsibility made by a respondent government is a sufficient ground, in the terms of the American Convention, to continue or not with the determination of the merits and the final reparations and costs. For such purposes, the Tribunal analyzes the situation of each particular case.8 15. In the case at hand, the Court points out that the State confessed the events that occurred on February 1, 1988 with respect to Mr. Germán Escué Zapata and the events referred to the excessive delay of the procedure initiated at the domestic level regarding the investigation and final punishment of the responsible. As a result, the Court declares that there are no disputed facts, which have been established according to the description of the following chapters. 16. There is still a dispute regarding the facts referred to the alleged “pattern of violence against the indigenous peoples that live in the [district of Cauca] and their leaders"; the alleged quality of "Cabildo Governor" of Mr. Escué Zapata and the alleged "theft and destruction” of the goods of Mr. Escué Zapata's relatives and the store or community enterprise. 17. By the same token, the Court notes that the State acknowledged the legal petitions of the Commission and the representatives with respect to: a) the violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 4(1), 5 and 7 of the American Convention, in conjunction with the obligation established in Article 1(1) therein, to the detriment of Mr. Germán Escué Zapata; b) the violation of the rights established in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) therein, to the detriment of Mr. Escué Zapata y his relatives; and c) the violation of the right established in Article 5(1) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) therein, to the detriment of Mr.Escué Zapata's next of kin. Besides, the State disputed the arguments referred to the alleged violation of the rights established in Articles 11(2), 21 and 23 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) therein. In the next chapters, the Court will determine if the facts that the State has confessed and the facts that are effectively proven violate the rights established in said articles. 18. Finally, the State acknowledged the duty to repair the violations committed against the alleged victim and his next of kin, but it has not accepted the Paez Indigenous Community as plaintiff. Furthermore, it has pointed out certain items regarding the compensation for the pecuniary and non pecuniary damages, which will be analyzed in Chapter XIII of this Judgment and accepted to adopt the following reparation measures: To carry out the investigation to punish the perpetrators and instigators of the facts of the case; to publish the relevant parts of the Judgment delivered by the […] Court; to perform an act of public recognition; to place a slab in memory of the [alleged] victim; to grant scholarships named after Mr. Germán Escué Zapata; to grant a scholarship to the daughter of Mr. Germán Escué Zapata; to provide 8 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack-Chang v. Guatemala. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C Nº 101, para. 105; Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 7, para. 9, and Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 49.