9 20. The representatives indicated that “the acknowledgment of responsibility presented by the State […] is limited on the one hand, and confusing on the other hand.” They highlighted that said acknowledgment does not include the submission of the investigation regarding sexual abuse against Mrs. Rosendo Cantu to the military jurisdiction, despite the fact that the State “recognizes it was recently charged […] with similar facts” and that “the preliminary investigation was resubmitted to the military jurisdiction when the case was already in the hands of [the] Court,” after the notification of the Judgment in the case of Radilla Pacheco. On the other hand, regarding the violation of Article 5 of the Convention, the representatives indicated that it only includes the suffering caused by the delay in the investigations, “although in this case there were violations to the personal integrity of the victim of utmost gravity,” and they emphasized that, it excludes “the violation of the personal integrity of the next of kin” caused by the delay in justice. Given the abovementioned, the representatives concluded that the international responsibility acknowledgement of the State is contradictory, and that “instead of attempting to rectify the damage caused, and as such, the dignity of the victim, it appears that it is directed at the Court being lenient when it declares its Judgment.” 21. Under the provisions of Articles 56(2) and 58 of the Rules of Procedure, in the exercise of its powers of international judicial protection of human rights, the Court can decide whether an acknowledgement of international responsibility made 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.25 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,26 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 specialized medical care to Mrs. Rosendo Cantu, the lack of specialized attention considering that she was a girl child, the delay in the investigation of the facts of the case and the impact that said delay caused to the personal integrity of the alleged victim. 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 psychological integrity established in Article 5(1) thereof, and the rights of the child, recognized in Article 19 of treaty at hand, to the detriment of Mrs. Rosendo Cantu. 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 were in line with international law and its jurisprudence. 24. The Inter-American Court decides to accept the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility and assesses it as a partial admission of the facts and partial acceptance of the claims of law in the Commission’s application and in the brief of pleadings and 25 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. 26 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 17, para. 18, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra note 25, para. 17.