5 written arguments, the representative requested the Court to “expressly rule on the excessive use of force by state security officers, on the use of the Armed Force to fight against delinquency or social protests and on the ruling over human rights violations in – police or military – jurisdictions, considering the acknowledgement of liability made by the State”. Furthermore, the representative considered that the State’s declaration also imply an acknowledgement of liability regarding the alleged violation of Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention, the latter “for not abolishing provisions in its legislation which attribute jurisdiction to investigate human rights violation to police or military courts and for not amending the legislation regarding the application of the Security law during the intervention of the Armed Forces in the domestic order”. Finally, the representative requested that the Court “include a section in which [it shall] summarize the declarations of the witnesses and expert witnesses presented in the instant case, lay down the facts of the instant case […] and specify how the violation [of the articles regarding which the State acknowledged its liability] occurred”. 12. Pursuant to Articles 53(2) and 55 of the Rules of Procedure, by exercising its powers inherent to the international judicial protection of human rights, the Court may determine whether an acknowledgement of international responsibility made by a respondent State provides sufficient ground, according to the American Convention, to proceed or not with the merits and the determination of possible reparations and indemnities. To such effect, the Tribunal shall analyze the situation raised in each particular case7. Consequently, the Court shall specify the terms and scope of the partial acknowledgement of international responsibility made by the State and the extent of the remaining controversy. * * * 13. In its application the Commission concluded that the State is responsible for the violation of “its obligations set forth in” Articles 27 (Suspension of Guarantees), 4 (Right to Life), 8 (Judicial Guarantees), and 25 (Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, “in conjunction with” Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. The representatives alleged the violation of those same provisions, although with some different arguments. 14. The State acknowledged its responsibility for the alleged violation of Articles 27, 8 and 25 of the American Convention (supra para. 8). However, the State did not refer to the alleged failure to comply with the obligations embodied in Article 1(1) and 2 of the Convention in connection with the said provisions; neither did it specify if its acknowledgement of responsibility also concerned the representatives’ arguments. The State had not presented arguments with regard to these provisions in its answer to the application. 15. On the other hand, the Tribunal observes that the State has recognized that state agents deprived Mr. Zambrano Vélez, Mr. Caicedo Cobeña and Mr. Caicedo Cobeña of their life during the operation carried out on March 6, 1993, in the city of Guayaquil’s Barrio Batallón (infra paras. 73). Nonetheless, the State expressly excluded the alleged violation of Article 4 (Right to Life) of the Convention from its acknowledgement of responsibility. 16. Consequently, the Court considers that the dispute regarding the international responsibility for the failure to comply with the obligations set forth in Article 27 of the Convention and for the violation of Articles 8(1) and 25 thereof has ended, notwithstanding the specifications which will be made in the respective chapters. On the other hand, the Court considers that the dispute over the Cf. Case of Myrna Mack-Chang. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 105. See also Case of the Rochela Massacre. Judgment of May 11, 2007, para. 9, and Case of La Cantuta. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 49. 7