accepted the duty to implement measures of reparation related to the dismissal procedure. B.4 Assessment of the State’s acknowledgment 38. As indicated previously, the State’s acquiescence is partial (supra para. 24) and constitutes a positive contribution to the development of this process and to the reaffirmation of the principles that inspire the Convention, as well as to the victims’ need for reparation.14 Nevertheless, it also produces legal effects in the terms indicated. The Court will specify the scope of such effects in its substantive examination of the alleged violations of rights. As long as a dispute persists on these matters, the Court must issue a judgment in which it determines the facts that occurred, according to the evidence gathered during the proceedings before this Court and the acceptance of those facts, as well as their legal consequences. Furthermore, it will rule on the corresponding reparations. However, this Court does not consider it necessary, on this occasion, to open a discussion on all the points that were the subject of litigation, since some of the legal claims alleged were acknowledged by the State. VI EVIDENCE A. Admission of the documentary evidence 39. The Court received the documents submitted as evidence by the Commission and the State together with their main briefs (supra paras. 4 and 8). In the instant case, as in others, this Court admits those documents presented in a timely manner by the State and the Commission or requested as helpful evidence by its Presidency, 15 which have neither been disputed nor challenged, and whose authenticity has not been questioned.16 Because they are useful and public, the Court also incorporates two documents on domestic regulations, pursuant to Article 58(a) of the Rules. 17 40. For his part, the representative presented a series of documents (15 sets of documents) together with a statement rendered by affidavit. The State questioned the submission of these documents, considering that they pertain to the merits of the case and the claims for reparation. The Court recalls that evidence submitted outside of the proper procedural opportunities is not admissible, except in the exceptions established Cf. Case of Benavides Cevallos v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 19, 1998. Series C No. 38, para. 57, and Case of Spoltore v. Argentina, Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 9, 2020. Series C No. 404, para. 44. 15 The following documents were included as helpful evidence: 1) Order to initiate an investigation issued on June 15, 1994, by the military criminal judge of the First Naval Zone, which ordered legal summary proceedings, as well as the official notification of the accused or their representatives; 2) Prosecutor’s opinion of July 16, 1996 with the respective notifications for the accused or their representatives; 3) Statements of ER and of RG rendered in the military criminal proceedings, and 4) Military Criminal Code, Code of Military Criminal Procedure and the Ordinary Code of Criminal Procedure in force at the time of the facts (evidence file, folios 4823 to 5008). The “brief of August 11, 1994, presented by the accused in which they appear at the proceeding and appoint a defense attorney” is also included; this was presented by the State together with the documentation containing helpful evidence (evidence file, folios 4829 to 4830). In addition, it is made clear that in this judgment, persons are mentioned with initials, or through references to positions they held, who are not known to have been involved in the processing of the case at the international level, before the Inter-American Commission or the Inter-American Court. 16 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140, and Case of Vicky Hernández et al. v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 26, 2021. Series C No. 422, para. 16. 17 Namely: the Armed Forces Personnel Law and the Social Security Law of the Armed Forces of Ecuador. 14 11