9 by a defendant State offers sufficient grounds, in the terms of the American Convention, to continue examining the merits and determining possible reparations and costs.18 22. Given that the proceedings before this Court refer to the protection of human rights, a matter of international public order that transcends the intentions of the parties, the Court must ensure that acts of acquiescence are acceptable for the purposes of the Inter-American system. In this task, the Court does not merely verify the formal conditions, but must relate them to the nature and severity of the alleged violations, the requirements and interest of justice, the particular circumstances of the case, and the attitude and position of the parties,19 which are analyzed in each specific case. 23. Regarding the facts, the Court observes that the State partially acknowledged its international responsibility in a sufficiently clear and specific manner in relation to the delay in the provision of medical and psychological care to Mrs. Fernández Ortega, the destruction of the scientific evidence taken from the alleged victim, and the delay and lack of due diligence in the investigation of the case. Based on those facts, Mexico acknowledged its international responsibility for the violations of the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection established in Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, as well as the right to personal integrity established in Article 5 thereof – the latter only with regard to the psychological harm caused to the detriment of Mrs. Fernández Ortega. Finally, with regard to the claims concerning reparations, based on its acknowledgement of responsibility, the State indicated that the Court should order those measures that accorded with international law and its jurisprudence. 24. The Inter-American Court decides to accept the State’s acknowledgement of international responsibility and classify it as a partial admission of the facts and a partial acquiescence to the legal claims in the Commission’s application and in the brief of pleadings and motions of the representatives. Regarding possible reparations, the Court will examine these and take the pertinent decisions in Chapter XI of this Judgment. 25. The Inter-American Court assesses the acknowledgement made by Mexico and considers that it makes a positive contribution to the development of these proceedings, to the exercise of the principles that inspire the American Convention and to the conduct that the States are obliged to adopt in this matter, owing to the commitments made as parties to international human rights instruments.20 26. Lastly, the Court observes that the dispute between the parties remains with regard to the facts and claims relating to the alleged violations of the rights to personal integrity, judicial guarantees, honor and dignity, freedom of association, equality before the law, and judicial protection, established in Articles 5, 8, 11, 16, 24, and 25 of the American Convention, respectively, in relation to the general obligation to respect and ensure rights established in its Article 1(1); the obligation 18 Cf. Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 105; Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2010. Series C No. 212, para. 17, and Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 17. 19 Cf. Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008. Series C No. 177, para. 24; Case of Chitay Nech et al, supra note 18, para. 18, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas, supra note 18, para. 17. 20 Cf. Case of Trujillo Oroza v. Bolivia. Merits. Judgment of January 26, 2000. Series C No. 64, para. 42; Case of Gonzalez et. al. (“Cotton Fields”), supra note 15, para. 26, and Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 38.