9 If the respondent informs the Court of its acquiescence to the claims of the party that has brought the case, the Court, after hearing the opinions of the other parties to the case whether such acquiescence and its juridical effects are acceptable. In that event, the Court shall determine the appropriate reparations and indemnities. 38. Article 54 of the Rules of Procedure state 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. 39. With regard to the statements made by the State, the Courts observes that: a) In the answer to the application, it referred to the acknowledgement of “institutional responsibility” made by the President of Guatemala on August 9, 2000. In this declaration, the State accepted the “institutional responsibility incurred owing to non-compliance [with] the obligations of Article 1(1) of the American Convention” because of the failure to respect and ensure the rights recognized therein (supra paras. 6 and 16); b) It accepted that the facts which gave rise to the presentation of the petition to the Commission had occurred, according to the declaration made by the State on August 9, 2000 (supra paras. 6 and 16), and in the public hearing held on February 21, 2003, it indicated that it acknowledged the facts contained in the application (supra para. 32). However, at the same hearing, the State indicated that, in the absence of any other direct evidence, the mere verification that there was repressive political violence in Guatemala when the facts occurred, was insufficient to prove that agents of the State had tortured Maritza Urrutia; and c) It did not submit any arguments, either in the brief answering the application or in its final oral arguments with regard to the violations of the rights embodied in Articles 5, 7, 13, 8 and 25 of the American Convention and Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture, alleged by the Commission and the representatives of the alleged victim, and about the violation of Article 11 of the American Convention, alleged autonomously by the representatives. Likewise, the State did not present any evidence for the defense at the procedural occasions indicated in Article 43 of the Rules of Procedure. 40. Based on the above, the Court understands that the State made a declaration whereby it partially acknowledged international responsibility for failing to respect and ensure the rights embodied in the American Convention, owing to noncompliance with Article 1(1) thereof to the detriment of Maritza Urrutia; and, in both the answer to the application and the final oral arguments, it accepted that “the facts that gave rise to the application had occurred.” 41. However, the State did not communicate expressly its acquiescence to the other claims as established in Article 52(2) of the Rules of Procedure, did not present evidence for the defense, and kept silent with regard to the violations of the rights embodied in Articles 5, 7, 11, 13, 8 and 25 of the American Convention and Articles 1, 6 and 8 of the Inter-American Convention against Torture, which had been alleged in the application and in the brief of requests, arguments and evidence, respectively. During the public hearing, the State asserted that there was no direct evidence to