3 9. I immediately noted that in 2004 there was acquiescence in three cases regarding Guatemala (Cases of Plan de Sánchez Massacre, Molina Theissen and Carpio Nicolle), “whose representatives submitted in the respective hearings the request for forgiveness addressed by the State to the victims” —an expression with the positive effect of alleviating the moral consequences of the breach— and I mentioned that “the same happened during the first regular sessions of this year in two cases regarding Colombia (Cases of Mapiripán Massacre and Wilson Gutiérrez Soler).” I added that “it is significant that a tendency to this type of attitudes, which deserve reflection and consideration, seems to be emerging. We speak about a tendency -incipient or moderate, certainly- bearing in mind that over the last years several States have made statements wherein they acknowledge their international liability. This has occurred in cases from Argentina (Cases of Garrido and Baigorria and Bulacio), Bolivia (Case of Trujillo Oroza), Ecuador (Case of Benavídes Cevallos), Peru (Case of Barrios Altos) and Venezuela (Case of The Caracazo), in addition to the above mentioned cases from Guatemala and Colombia.” 10. The judgment to which I attach this concurring Separate Opinion refers precisely to one of those adjudicatory cases: the Case of Gutiérrez Soler v. Colombia, wherein acquiescence was made under unique conditions. The “manner in which acknowledgment of liability and request for forgiveness were made —I noted in the above mentioned report submitted to the Commission on Legal and Political Affairs of the Organization of American States— sets an outstanding precedent.” I concluded that “our Court has not disregarded these facts, which have a significant political, legal, and moral value and so it has expressed in the pertinent orders.” My Separate Opinion gives me the opportunity to mention these comments —which are those of the Court as whole— and highlight once more the special characteristics of the acknowledgment of liability and request for forgiveness made at the public hearing in the Case of Gutiérrez Soler, held in the courtroom on March 9, 2005. As to the statements made by the parties at such hearing, I refer to paragraphs 28, 29, and 30 of the Judgment. C) THE PRACTICE OF ACQUIESCENCE 11. It is meet to add some remarks regarding acquiescence and acknowledgment of international liability by the State. The first one refers to a practical issue which influences the course of the proceedings and the opinion of the Court. I refer to the content and manner of the procedural act performed by the State, which is undoubtedly relevant and influences the course and the resolution of the proceedings, though it does not determine them necessarily. If the State merely states that it acknowledges its “international liability” for the facts alleged in the case, that does not necessarily encompass all the issues which there is an interest in knowing and on which a decision is to be rendered. Hence, the Court addressed this subject in the amendments made to the Rules on November 25, 2003 and in effect as of January 1, 2004. 12. At present Article 38(2) of the Rules of the Court regarding the response to the application, but also applicable in its pertinent parts to the subsequent acquiescence -which, in essence, is a supplementary and delayed response to the application— sets out that: “In its answer, the respondent must state whether it accepts the facts and claims or whether it contradicts them, and the Court may consider accepted those facts that have not been expressly denied and the claims that have not been expressly contested.” In turn, Article 53(2) sets forth 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