6 V PREVIOUS CONSIDERATIONS 34. The Tribunal rejected the brief containing the defendant’s plea because it was not presented within the stipulated period (supra para. 17). The Court considered it relevant to make reference to the applicability of Article 38(2) of the Rules of Procedure, invoked by the Commission and the representatives in their final written arguments to the instant case. 35. Article 38(2) of the Rules of Procedures states: In its answer, the respondent must state whether it accepts the facts and claims or whether it contradicts them, and the Court may consider accepted those facts that have not been expressly denied and the claims that have not been expressly contested. 36. This Court leaves on record that the State did respond to the application, but the Court rejected said brief because it was not presented within the period stipulated by the Rules of Procedure (supra para. 17). Also, the Court points out that the State had the opportunity to present arguments in later stages of the proceeding before the Court pursuant to the requirements made by the Tribunal when consulted on the possible realization of a public hearing (supra para. 23) and through Order of the President of March 18, 2005 in which he requested the presentation of final written pleadings (supra paras. 25 and 30). On said procedural opportunities, the State considered that it was “possible to omit the realization of a public hearing” (supra para. 24) and it insisted on the possibility of an amicable solution (supra para. 30). Therefore, this Tribunal considers that there aren’t any pleas from the State on the claims of the parties to this case. 37. Pursuant to Article 38(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court is authorized to consider as established the facts that have not been expressly denied and the claims that have not been expressly contested. However, the Tribunal is not obliged to do so in all the cases in which a similar situation presents itself. Therefore, exercising its responsibility to protect human rights, under these circumstances the Court will determine in each case, the need to establish the facts, as they were presented by the parties or taking into account other elements from the evidence available.1 38. With regard to Ecuador’s request that the Court “await the result of the conversations between the representatives of the alleged victim, Mr. Acosta [Calderón] and the State, seeking to achieve an amicable solution and discover the current whereabouts of [the alleged victim]” (supra para. 30), this Tribunal recalls that, taking into account the responsibility it has to protect the human rights established in Article 55 of its Rules of Procedure, it may, even in the presence of a proposal to reach an amicable solution, continue to hear the case. The Tribunal considers that, in order to effectively protect human rights, it must continue to hear the case at hand. VI EVIDENCE 1 Cfr. Case of Caesar. Judgment of March 11, 2005. Series C No. 123, para. 38.