25 rather to protect the victims and to provide for the reparation of damages resulting from the acts of the States responsible. IX 137. Although the Commission questioned the veracity of the Honduran and Guatemalan certificates and documents submitted to prove the travel of Francisco Fairén Garbi and Yolanda Solís Corrales from Honduras to Guatemala, it did not offer any evidence in support of its position. 138. The expert appointed by the President found the signature "Francisco Fairén G." on the entry receipt of December 12, 1981, to be genuine. 139. During the hearings, the Government objected, under Article 37 of the Rules of Procedure, to the testimony of witnesses called by the Commission. By decision of October 6, 1987, the Court rejected the challenge, holding as follows: b. The objection refers to circumstances under which, according to the Government, the testimony of these witnesses might not be objective. c. It is within the Court's discretion, when rendering judgment, to weigh the evidence. d. A violation of the human rights set out in the Convention is established by facts found by the Court, not by the method of proof. f. When testimony is questioned, the challenging party has the burden of refuting that testimony. 140. During cross-examination, the Government's attorneys attempted to show that some witnesses were not impartial because of ideological reasons, origin or nationality, family relations, or a desire to discredit Honduras. They even insinuated that testifying against the State in these proceedings was disloyal to the nation. Likewise, they cited criminal records or pending charges to show that some witnesses were not competent to testify. 141. It is true, of course, that certain factors may clearly influence a witness' truthfulness. However, the Government did not present any concrete evidence to show that the witnesses had not told the truth, but rather limited itself to making general observations regarding their alleged incompetency or lack of impartiality. This is insufficient to rebut testimony which is fundamentally consistent with that of other witnesses. The Court cannot ignore such testimony. 142. Moreover, some of the Government's arguments are unfounded within the context of human rights law. The insinuation that persons who, for any reason, resort to the Inter-American system for the protection of human rights are disloyal to their country is unacceptable and cannot constitute a basis for any penalty or negative consequence. Human rights are higher values that "are not derived from the fact that (an individual) is a national of a certain state, but are based upon attributes of his human personality" (American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, Whereas clauses, and American Convention, Preamble). Contrary to the above insinuations, international systems for the protection of human rights are based on the premise that the State is at the service of the community and not the reverse. It is violations of human rights that are subject to punishment: this can never be true for resorting to those systems or for contributing to the application of the law by them.