2 of the American Convention. Nevertheless, once the petition has been filed, the resolution of the conflict is no longer under the petitioner’s control. 5. Consequently, the approval or the rejection of an out-of-court settlement reached by the parties implies an issue of justice and an issue of opportunity. It is necessary that the parties’ agreement be: a) just, that is, consistent with the necessary preservation of human rights in general and in particular; b) supported by actual, clearly established facts rather than a “formal version” which might put justice at the mercy of fiction; and c) acceptable for the purposes of the international protection system, taking into consideration that in certain cases it is advisable to go further —notwithstanding the justice of the agreement from the individual’s point of view— and leave the resolution on the issue to the public authorities having jurisdiction over it, in the interest of justice in general, in furtherance of opportunity. Hence, the Commission and the Court, in their own due time and circumstances, may approve an out-of-court settlement and close the proceedings or decide that it continue until it comes to its natural conclusion: a recommendation or judgment. B) SETTLEMENT BEFORE THE INTER-AMERICAN JURISDICTION 6. A great number of conflicts are solved before the Inter-American Commission through a “friendly settlement of the matter on the basis of respect for the human rights recognized in” the ACHR (Article 48(1)(f) of the Convention). Contrary to what is assumed, settlements are also increasingly reached during proceedings before the Court, whether at the written stage or the oral one. Statistics covering a quarter of a century, from 1979 through the first half of 2005 —it should be borne in mind, however, that during the first years there were relatively many advisory opinions, but not as many adjudicatory cases— show that the respondent States acquiesced totally or partially to the applications made and acknowledged their international liability for the acts committed in violation of human rights in 24 percent of the cases filed for adjudication by the Court. This was true of fifteen cases, whereas in 49 there was no acquiescence to the claims. However, it is important to point out that in most cases acquiescence to the claims was partial. 7. I believe that this phenomenon shows a tendency that is encouraging, insofar as it evidences the decision of the States to take the consequences of the illicit conduct of their agents and other persons, and to avoid unnecessary and even unjustified disputes, where there is sufficient evidence of the existence of acts in violation of rights. Hence, the Court has addressed this matter in the report I submitted, as President of the Court, to the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs of the Organization of American States on April 14, 2005. In such report a section is reserved to this matter under the title “Acquiescence and acknowledgment of liability.” 8. In the first part of such Section I pointed out that “It is the parties’ duty to set their respective positions in trial, taking into consideration the facts which are the subject matter thereof as well as the claims arising therefrom. It is the Court’s duty to resolve the dispute by rendering judgment. Even when this is the general rule, to which most proceedings conform, it is also possible that these proceedings come to an end through settlements, either unilateral or bilateral, abandonment of action, acquiescence, or the parties’ agreement. Though these acts are not in themselves binding on the Court, they may be quite useful to reach the solution of a dispute — either entirely or partially— and, above all, to highlight the respect for the protection of human rights and the effectiveness of the commitments assumed on this matter.”