13 (b) It appreciates the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility. This corresponds to the acknowledgement previously made before the Commission, “which has effects in the proceedings before the Court.” In other words, the State did not contradict the facts before the Commission or before the Court and accepted the violation of Articles 4, 5 and 7 of the Convention. But the acquiescence is partial, to the extent that it only accepted the violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention in some aspects of the three cases; hence, the Commission considered that the State is responsible for the partial impunity in these cases; (c) Regarding reparations, the State acknowledged its obligation to make adequate reparation to the victims of the human rights violations perpetrated during the Stroessner regime, but referred repeatedly to its domestic laws to indicate that the alleged victims could have requested reparations using the procedure established in Act No. 836 (sic) of 1996; and (d) The acquiescence made in this case constitutes a total acceptance of the facts alleged in the application and ends the dispute in this regard. Nevertheless, the Commission asked the Court to include a detailed account of the facts in the judgment, “not only as part of the grounds for the judgment, but also for its effects to repair the damage caused.” 43. The representatives did not submit their requests and arguments autonomously. However, in their final arguments, they stated, inter alia, that: 44. (a) The alleged good intentions and efforts of the State “do not exist in reality and its attempt to prove the existence of its efforts to reach a friendly settlement is not credible and lacks any substance and reliability”; and (b) The State’s avowal of most of the facts in this case ends the dispute in this respect However, they considered pertinent that, in its judgment, the Court should declare the truth about the facts and the violations committed against the alleged victims and their next of kin, and also the consequent international responsibility of the State. Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure establishes that: If the respondent informs the Court of its acquiescence to the claims of the party that has brought the case as well as to the claims of the representatives of the alleged victims, his next of kin or representatives, the Court, after hearing the opinions of the other parties to the case, shall decide whether such acquiescence and its juridical effects are acceptable. In that event, the Court shall determine the appropriate reparations and costs. 45. Article 55 of the Rules of Procedure stipulates that: The Court may, notwithstanding the existence of the conditions indicated in the preceding paragraphs, and bearing in mind its responsibility to protect human rights, decide to continue the consideration of a case. 46. The Court, exercising its role of the international judicial protection of human rights, can determine whether an acknowledgement of international responsibility