12 49. By exercising its inherent powers of international judicial protection of human rights, the Court may determine whether the acknowledgement of international responsibility by a respondent State provides sufficient ground, under the terms of the American Convention, to proceed with the merits and the determination of the reparations and costs. To such effect, the Court shall analyze each particular case.1 50. In prior cases decided by the Court, where there have existed an acquiescence and acknowledgement of international responsibility, the Court has held that: […] Article 53[2] of the Rules of Procedure refers to the case where a respondent State communicates to the Court its admission of the facts and acquiescence to the claims of the petitioner and so, it accepts its international responsibility for the violation of the Convention, under the terms stated in the application; this situation would lead to an early termination of the proceedings on the merits, as provided in Chapter V of the Rules of Procedure. The Court points out that pursuant to the provisions of the Rules of Procedure, effective as from June 1, 2001, the application includes the allegations on the issues of fact and of law and the petitions referred to the merits of the case and the appropriate reparations and costs. In this sense, when a State acquiesces to an application, it must clearly indicate whether it is only referred to the merits of the case or if it also refers to the reparations and costs. If the acquiescence only refers to the merits of the case, the Court shall have to evaluate whether to continue with the procedural stage for deciding over reparations and costs. […] In the light of the evolution of the system of protection of human rights, nowadays, the alleged victims or their next of kin can file their brief of petitions, arguments and evidence separately and independently from those filed by the Commission, and they can even file claims consistent or not with those of the Commission, consequently, in the event an acknowledgement is submitted, it must clearly state if the claims of the alleged victims or their next of kin are also admitted.1 i) Acknowledgement of the State regarding the facts 51. The Court points out that the State admitted the facts stated by the Commission in the application (supra para. 40.) In such broad terms, and considering that the application as the factual frame of the proceeding,2 the Court deems that the controversy over all the facts described therein has ended. ii) Acknowledgement of the State regarding the issues of law 52. The Court finds that the dispute regarding the international liability of the State for the violation of the rights enshrined in Article 4 (Right to Life,) 5 (Right to Humane Treatment,) and 7 (Right to Personal Liberty) of the American Convention, in relation with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Hugo Muñoz- Sanchez; Juan Mariños-Figueroa; Bertila Lozano-Torres; Roberto Teodoro-Espinoza; Marcelino Rosales-Cardenas; Felipe Flores-Chipana; Luis Enrique Ortiz-Perea; Armando Amaro-Condor; Heráclides Pablo-Meza 1 Cf. Case of Vargas Areco. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, para. 43; Case of Goiburú et al. Judgment on Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, para. 45; and Case of Servellón García et al. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, para 53. Cf. Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 1, para. 47. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para.66; and Case of Molina-Theissen. Judgment of May 4, 2004. Series C No. 106, paras. 41-44. 1 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 1, para. 48; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 55; and Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 2 para. 59. Also Cf. Case of the Moiwana Community. Judgment of July 15, 2005. Series C No. 124 para. 91; and Case of De la Cruz-Flores. Judgment of November 18, 2004. Series C No. 115, para. 122. 2