15 with inter-American case law that could be implemented by the State, should the Court deem them pertinent and order them. 45. Therefore, the Court finds that a dispute subsists regarding certain claims relating to reparations and costs. * * * 46. Based on all the above, the Court finds that the State’s position constitutes a positive contribution to the development of these proceedings, to the satisfactory functioning of the inter-American human rights jurisdiction, to the exercise of the principles that inspire the American Convention and to the conduct that the States are obliged to observe in this regard14 as a result of the commitments they assume as parties to international human rights instruments. 47. The Court observes that despite the State’s partial acknowledgement of facts and its acquiescence with regard to several claims of the parties, it is still necessary to define the importance and gravity of the violations perpetrated in the instant case. Consequently, based on its powers to ensure the greatest protection of human rights, the Court finds it necessary to deliver a judgment in which it establishes the facts and determines the merits of the case, as well as their corresponding consequences. This constitutes a form of reparation for the victims and their next of kin and also contributes to the preservation of historical memory, to the non-repetition of similar facts, and, in brief, to achieving the purposes of the inter-American system for the protection of human rights.15 48. Hence, without prejudice to the scope of the partial acknowledgment of facts made by the State, the Court finds it pertinent to assess the facts of the instant case, both those acknowledged by Colombia and those included in the application and indicated by the representatives that explain, elucidate, or allow the Court to reject the facts mentioned in the application. In addition, the Court finds it necessary to clarify the way in which the violations occurred in the context and circumstances of the case and the scope of the obligations established in the American Convention, and will include the respective chapters. These clarifications will contribute to the development of case law on the subject and thereby to the protection of human rights. V EVIDENCE 49. Based on the provisions of Articles 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as on the Court's jurisprudence concerning evidence and its assessment,16 the Court will evaluate the documentary probative elements submitted by the Commission, the representatives, and the State at different procedural opportunities or as helpful evidence requested by the President and the Court, as well as testimonial and informative statements and opinions sworn before notary public (affidavits) or provided during the public hearing before the 14 Cf. Benavides Cevallos v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 19, 1998. Series C No. 38, para. 57; Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008. Series C No. 177, para. 25, and Case of Albán Cornejo el al., supra note 5, para. 24. 15 Cf. Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of December 3, 2001. Series C No. 88, para. 79; Kimel, supra note 14, para. 28, and Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 31. 16 Cf. The “White Van" (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76, para. 50; Bayarri, supra note 13, para. 31, and Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 13, para. 64.