8 practice was not enough to prove that it was agents of the State who tortured Maritza Urrutia. The statements heard lead us to surmise that it was probable, but it has not been proved.” The State also indicated that: it has been shown in this Court that the facts that the State acknowledges as having occurred took place in a context of armed conflict, which, unfortunately, did not ensure security of any kind to any Guatemalan. The State cannot accept responsibility for its agents, if this has not been decided in a domestic court previously. A State cannot violate the rights of a Guatemalan citizen should he be convicted, or deprive him of his rights, if he has not previously been summonsed, heard and convicted in a trial. In the same way, a State may not violate its organizational structures by presenting an acknowledgement, if its Judiciary has not provided the corresponding justice previously. It would appear that this acknowledgement was not sufficient for the representatives of the alleged victims. 34. In the application, in the public hearing, and in the final written arguments, the Inter-American Commission indicated that the State’s acknowledgement of institutional responsibility for non-compliance with the obligations imposed in Article 1(1) of the Convention to the detriment of Maritza Urrutia, made by the President of Guatemala on August 9, 2000, had full legal effect in accordance with the principles of international law and, pursuant to the American Convention, bound the State to repair the violations committed. The Commission added that this “declaration confirms the State’s acknowledgement of the facts of the case” and: it implies that, in this case, the Guatemalan State is internationally responsible for the violations of the rights to personal liberty, humane treatment and freedom of expression embodied in Articles 5, 7, and 13 of the American Convention. And also of the rights to a fair trial and effective judicial protection established in Articles 8 and 25 of this instrument. 35. At the public hearing, when referring to the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility, the representatives of the alleged victim indicated that the State had: acknowledged all the facts established in the application presented by the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights. The Guatemalan State acknowledged and did not contest the petitions established in the application. However, when the Guatemalan State was asked if it acquiesced fully to the application, it said that it did not. We believe that there is a nuance here and we do not understand completely the reasons for full acknowledgement of State responsibility and of the terms established in the application, but non-acquiescence to this application. We believe that it is important that the Court should establish in future, in the case not only of the Guatemalan State but of all States, the mechanisms for a State to be able to acknowledge its total or partial responsibility for facts that have been established. This is a nebulous issue that leaves us without any guidance when conducting this type of proceeding, and in order to establish the necessary reparations precisely. 36. Lastly, the representatives indicated in their brief with final arguments that the facts had been accepted by the State, first by the public acknowledgement made by the President of Guatemala on August 9, 2000, by recognizing State responsibility for failing to comply with the obligations imposed by Article 1(1) of the Convention to the detriment of Maritza Urrutia; and, second, in its oral arguments, when the Agent of the State affirmed that “the Government of Guatemala acknowledged that the facts which gave rise to the submission of the application had occurred.” Considerations of the Court 37. Article 52(2) of the Rules of Procedure establishes that :