10 opinion, offered in the public hearing and before a notary public, to the extent that they meet the object defined by the President in the order that authorized their reception. 25. It should, however, be noted that the representative requested that 34 persons testify in the context of a visit to the “Aurora 8 de octubre” Community. In the order of December 13, 2017 (supra para. 8), the President “considered it relevant to assess the outcome of the visit to gather evidence after the public hearing in this case.”20 On May 31, 2018, the parties and the Commission were informed that “bearing in mind the existing body of evidence, the Court denied the request.”21 VI. FACTS 26. Having examined the evidence and having heard the arguments of the Commission and the parties, the Court considers the facts to be as follows. In doing so, the Court bears in mind that Guatemala indicated, in “commenting on the Merits Report” that sets out the factual framework on what the Court must resolve, that “it is not unaware of the incident that occurred.” The Court also notes that soon after the incident took place, the then President of Guatemala recognized the “institutional responsibility” and, subsequently, the judicial authorities determined what had occurred and convicted those responsible (infra paras. 60, 64 and 65). At the public hearing, the State was asked to clarify whether it recognized the events. In its final written arguments, Guatemala did not respond either affirmatively or negatively, but rather averred that “the truth of the events as recorded by the Commission for Historical Clarification (hereinafter also “CEH”) should come first.” The Court considers that the State has accepted, in general, the facts contained in the Merits Report. The Court, in establishing the relevant facts, will consider that acceptance, as well as the assertions of the CEH.22 A. Context 27. The Court, on previous opportunities, has noted that The State of Guatemala was engaged in an internal armed conflict between the years 1962 and 1996 that produced enormous human, material, institutional and moral costs.23 In 1990, a peace process was begun that culminated in December 1996 when the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Guatemalan National Revolutionary Unitary (URNG), with the participation of civil society, signed the Agreement on a Firm and Lasting Peace, with the purpose of ending the armed conflict. That Agreement validates the twelve agreements that were signed during prior negotiations, among them, “the establishment of the Commission for Historical Clarification of the human rights violations and the acts of violence that have caused the suffering of the Guatemalan people.” That Commission began its work on July 31, 1997 and published its report “Guatemala, Memory of Silence” on February 25, 1999.24 Cf. Case of Coc Max et al v. Guatemala. Call to a public hearing, supra, considering paragraph 23. The Court notes that, in its brief with pleadings and motions, the representative stated that it would also serve as a “precautionary measure for those whose lives were in danger.” With respect to the alleged situation, reference is made to the provisional measures adopted (supra para. 10). 22 In this context, the Court will bear in mind the pertinent facts derived from the evidence provided to the Court as documentary evidence, including information presented by the parties in the proceedings before the Commission. 23 Cf. Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of April 29, 2004. Series C No. 105, para. 42(1); Case of García and family members v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2012. Series C No. 258, para. 51 and Case of the Members of the Village of Chichupac and neighboring communities of the Municipality of Rabinal v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 30, 2016. Series C No. 328, para. 76. 24 Case of the Members of the Village of Chichupac and neighboring communities of the Municipality of Rabinal v. Guatemala, supra, para. 76. Similarly, Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 134.9. 20 21