17 acknowledgment of international responsibility made by an accused State offers enough grounds, in the terms of the American Convention, to continue to hear the merits and determine the possible reparations and costs.40 61. Given that the proceedings before this Court refer to the protection of human rights, a matter of international public order that transcends the will of the parties, the Court shall make sure that the acts of acquiescence result acceptable for the purposes the InterAmerican system seeks to fulfill. In this task it does not limit itself to verifying the formal conditions of the mentioned acts, but it shall confront them to the nature and gravity of the alleged violations, the demands and interest of justice, the specific circumstances of the case in question and the parties’ attitude and position.41 62. In what refers to the facts of the present case, the Court observes that the State did not clearly and specifically indicate the facts of the application that act as grounds for its partial acknowledgment of responsibility. However, upon accepting the alleged violations to Articles 5 and 7 of the American Convention, in relation to the obligation established in Article 1(1) of the same, this Tribunal understands that Mexico has also acknowledged the facts that, according to the application –factual framework of these proceedings-, make up these violations; that is, those regarding the arrest and subsequent disappearance of Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco in the hands of members of the Mexican army, as well as the infringement of the right to humane treatment in his detriment. Regarding this last matter, the Court observes that the State accepted the violation of Article 5 of the Convention, in detriment of his next of kin, for the partial non-compliance of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. The State has accepted the unjustified delay in the investigations tending to determine the whereabouts of Mr. Radilla-Pacheco and to locate and punish those responsible; however, it has denied that impunity has persisted in this case and, even though it stated that there is a denial of justice in the present case, it indicated that it was not a result of the “State’s negligence or willingness to maintain impunity.” (supra para. 53) 63. Without detriment of the aforementioned, the Tribunal decides to accept the acknowledgment made by the State and consider it a partial admission of facts and partial Article 56. Discontinuance of a case […] 2. If the respondent informs the Court of its acquiescence to the claims of the party that has brought the case or the claims of the alleged victims or their representatives, the Court shall decide, after hearing the opinions of the other parties to the case, whether to accept such acquiescence, and rule upon its juridical effects. In that event, the Court shall determine the corresponding reparations and costs. Article 58. 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 paragraphs. 40 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para 105; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 28, and, Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009 Series C No. 196, para. 23. 41 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang. Merits, Reparations, and Costs, supra note 40, paras. 106 through 108; Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia, supra note 23, para. 21, and Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra note 40, para. 24.