7 23. As to the early termination of the proceedings, Articles 53, 54, and 55 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure regulate the procedures of discontinuance of a case, friendly settlement, and continuance of a case.10 24. The Court notes that the expressions “whether to discontinue the hearing,” “whether such acquiescence and its juridical effects are acceptable,” “may strike the case from its list,” as well as the entire text of Article 55 of the Rules of Procedure, show that these acts are not, in themselves, binding on the Court. Since proceedings brought before the Court seek the protection of human rights –a matter of international public order which goes beyond the will of the parties–, the Court must ensure that such acts are acceptable for the purposes sought by the Inter-American System. In doing so, the Court must not only verify the formal conditions of said acts, but also examine them in relation to the nature and seriousness of the alleged violations, the requirements and interests of justice, the specific circumstances surrounding a particular case, and the attitude and position of the parties. 25. Taking the foregoing into consideration, the Court has verified that the acknowledgement of responsibility made by the State (supra para. 22) is based on facts which have been clearly established, and is in line with the protection of the right to freedom of thought and expression and the right to have a hearing within a reasonable time, as well as with the general obligations to respect and ensure rights and to adopt domestic measures. In turn, said acknowledgement does not restrict the scope of the fair reparation measures to which the victim is entitled, but is subject to the decision of the Court. Therefore, the Court has decided to accept the acknowledgment made by the State and to deem it as a confession to the facts, as the State’s acquiescence to the victim’s legal claims contained in the application filed by the Commission, and as the acceptance of the arguments put forward by the representatives. The Court further considers that the attitude of the State is a valuable contribution to the development of these proceedings, to the fulfillment of the judicial functions of the Inter-American system for the protection of human rights, to the effectiveness of the principles underlying the American Convention, and to the conduct to which States are bound in this regard,11 as a result of the commitments undertaken as parties to the international instruments on human rights. 10 Article 53. Discontinuance of a case 1. When the party that has brought the case noticed the Court of its intention not to proceed with it, the Court shall, alter hearing the opinions of the other parties thereto, decide wheter to discontinue the hearing and, consequently, to strike the case from its list. 2. 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 victims, their next of kin or their representatives, the Court, after hearing the opinions of the other parties to the case shall decide whether such acquiescence and its juridical effects are acceptable. In that event, the Court shall determine the appropriate reparations and indemnities (*). Article 54. Friendly settlement When the parties to a case before the Court inform it of the existence of a friendly settlement, compromise, or any other occurrence likely to lead to a settlement of the dispute, the Court may strike the case from its list. Article 55. Continuation of a case 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. 11 Cf. Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Legal Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 29; Case of Bueno-Alves v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 164, para. 34, and Case of Zambrano-Vélez v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 30.