11 to determine the international responsibility of a State Party to the Convention for any violations of the provisions thereof.2 58. The Court, exercising its inherent authority of international protection of human rights, can establish whether an acknowledgment of international responsibility by a respondent State offers sufficient basis, in terms of the American Convention, to proceed or not with its hearing of the merits of the case and the determination of reparations.3 To that effect, the Court shall analyze the situation in each particular case. 59. Taking into account the acknowledgment by the State of the events occurred before September 2000, which were detailed in the application filed by the Commission and the brief of requests and arguments filed by the representatives, the Court considers that the controversy raised over them has ended and declares that they occurred as stated under paragraphs 97(1) to 97(28), 97(53) to 97(55), 97(60) to 97(63), 97(67) to 97(86), 97(120) to 97(125), and 97(131) to 97(137) hereof. 60. The Court considers that the acknowledgment made by the State constitutes a positive contribution to the development of these proceedings and the effectiveness of the principles enshrined by the American Convention. 61. Therefore, the Court deems it relevant to include a chapter on the events of the instant case covering both the events acknowledged by the State (supra para. 59) and the events that are proven in the case file as having occurred after September 2000 (infra para. 98). 62. In the following chapters, the Court shall proceed to establish the legal consequences of the events acknowledged by the State which occurred before September 2000, in accordance with the American Convention and taking into account the allegations made by Peru at the public hearing and in its closing written arguments (supra paras. 33 and 36). b) Alleged new events asserted by the representatives in their brief of requests and arguments 63. At the public hearing, Peru stated that there was a series of “detailed events” in the brief of requests and arguments filed by the representatives on which “the State ha[d] no opportunity to express an opinion,” but it failed to indicate which events it was referring. 64. The representatives submitted to the consideration of the Court certain facts referred to the alleged violation of Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment) of the Convention, to the detriment of the alleged victims, the alleged mistreatment suffered 2 Cf. Case of the ““Mapiripán Massacre””. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 64. 3 Cf. Case of the ““Mapiripán Massacre””, supra note 2, para. 65; Case of Huilca Tecse. Judgment of March 03, 2005. Series C No. 121, para. 42; and Case of Myrna Mack-Chang. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 105.