V PARTIAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY 31. In its answer to the application, the State accepted its international responsibility for the facts argued by the Inter-American Commission in the following terms: [t]he Argentine State understands that, given that the relevant authorities in the Province of Chubut have not been able to eliminate the possibility that State agents participated in the enforced disappearance of Iván Eladio Torres [Millacura], and recognizing that their participation is presumed, in light of the applicable interpretive standards of international human rights law and the provisions of Article 38 of the Rules of Procedure of the [InterAmerican Commission], this is sufficient to place objective responsibility for the facts denounced on the Province of Chubut and, therefore, upon the National State. Taking this into account, and taking into consideration the international nature of the rights violations previously recognized and having taken place in the jurisdiction of the Province of Chubut, the Government of the Republic of Argentina expresses its willingness to accept the conclusions contained in the [R]eport [on the merits] adopted by the [Inter-American Commission] in keeping with the provisions of Article 50 of the American Convention, along with the juridical consequences derived therefrom. 32. Similarly, during the public hearing, the State indicated that, “in line with its traditional policy of cooperation with the organs of the Inter-American System of Human Rights, […] far from litigating the case or submitting opposing legal arguments, [the State] set forth its best efforts to come to a friendly settlement […] all throughout the proceedings before the [Inter-American]Court” and, “consistent” with its position, reiterated to the Court its responsibility as stated in the answer to the application. However, the State also clearly expressed that it rejected the statements of the InterAmerican Commission in its application and of the representatives in their brief of pleadings and motions with regard to the provisional measures ordered by the Court in the matter of Millacura Llaipén et al. regarding Argentina (supra paras. 1 to 3, and 5); the Inter-American Commission’s identification of one of Iván Eladio Torres Millacura’s nieces as an alleged victim in the case; the violations alleged by the representatives of Articles 1(1), 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 19, 25, and 26 of the American Convention, 1, 2, 6, and 8 of the Convention against Torture, III of the Convention on Forced Disappearance, and the “Protocol of San Salvador” as a whole, to the detriment of Iván Eladio Torres, María Leontina Millacura Llaipén, Fabiola Valeria Torres, Marcos Alejandro Torres, Evelyn Paola Caba, Ivana Valeria Torres, and Romina Marcela Torres, in relation to the section on “[c]itizen [s]ecutiry and [h]uman [r]ights” of the brief containing pleadings and motions; the alleged existence of a practice of massive and systematic violations of human rights in Argentina alleged by the representatives; other facts not included in the Commission's Report on the merits; 7 and the specific claims for reparations set out by the representatives, including the identifications of the beneficiaries. 33. The Commission stated that it positively assessed the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility. It also indicated that it understood the acknowledgment to include “both the acceptance of the factual framework of the [R]eport on the merits - which is the same as that in the application - and the juridical consequences it establishes.” The representatives indicated that the State’s “acquiescence meant the legitimacy” of both the Commission’s application and the brief of pleadings and motions of the representatives. 34. In keeping with Articles 62 and 64 of the Rules of Procedure8 and in exercise of its powers of international judicial protection of human rights, an issue of international 7 These include other detentions undergone by Mr. Torres not mentioned in the Report of the Commission, the alleged abuses suffered by Mrs. Millacura Llaipén at the hands of the police, and the alleged facts that occurred in relation to other persons not mentioned as victims in the Report on the Merits. 8 The pertinent parts of articles 62 and 64 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court establish the following: 9