6 conclusive. In this sense, they emphasized that, given the impunity surrounding this case, the Court should depend on reliable evidence before deciding on this aspect and, therefore, they requested the Court to order the State to present the relevant court files to be able to learn about the complete investigations conducted regarding these two persons. 9. That the Commission pointed out that the supporting documentation furnished by the State is incomplete, its pages are illegible and in some cases, the signature of the deponent does not appear. Besides, it emphasized that the documentation furnished was prepared before the case was brought before the Court. Furthermore, it noted that the most of the allegations made by the State are based “on statements rendered by people who requested not to be identified”. Based on the foregoing, the Commission considered that the State should furnish complete and legible copies of all the documents that the State referred to in its briefs, “specially, of the statements of the witnesses, beyond their request to maintain the confidentiality regarding the identity” and that the State should explain the reasons why it did not make that information available to the parties and the Tribunal in time fashion. After the hearing, the Commission stated that “the information furnished was not sufficient to be able to refer to the situation” mentioned; therefore, it requested the Tribunal to require further information in that regard. 10. That Colombia has questioned the quality of victims of two persons that the Court declared as such in the Judgment, after alleging the existence of facts as a result of the internal investigations conducted. That is to say, the State requests the Court to substantially review an aspect regarding the merits of the case as established in the Judgment. 11. As noted by the State itself in its request, in the Judgment on the merits and reparations, the Court determined that Messrs. Omar Patiño Vaca and Eliécer Martínez Vaca are victims of the Mapiripán massacre and, therefore, beneficiaries of the reparations so ordered. This has been determined based on information furnished by the State itself in relation to the criminal investigations, in response to a request of the Tribunal to present evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case8. Specially, on that occasion, the State forwarded a charter prepared by the Attorney General's Office, office in charge of the investigations, which included the names of those people as disappeared in the Mapiripán Massacre. Hence, the Court established as proven fact that “information supplied by the State in its brief with final pleadings and in an April 6, 2005 document signed by the Attorney General’s Office points out that the following persons have been individually identified in the criminal proceeding: […] Omar Patiño Vaca, Eliécer Martínez Vaca […], as victims of the facts in Mapiripán.”9 Furthermore, it is convenient to recall that the State alleged that it explicitly acknowledged its international responsibility for the violation of the rights to life, humane treatment and personal liberty, but “with regard to those who appear [in the brief with final allegations] as proven victims and likewise with regard to those who prove, in accordance with domestic law, that they are victims”. Upon responding to this argument, the Tribunal took the following into account: 133. The Court notes that when it made said acknowledgment, the State explicitly accepted that, despite being as yet indeterminate, at least 49 victims were executed or made to disappear. In its brief with final pleadings, the State sought to limit the number of victims to only 12 persons, only 6 of whom are individually identified, which is inconsistent and incompatible with the acknowledgment of responsibility made before this 8 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005, Serie C No. 134, para. 96.52, 133 and 254. 9 Cf. Case of the “Maripirán Massacre” v. Colombia, supra nota 8, para. 96.52.