31. The Court stresses that the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility encompasses the entirety of the facts and human rights violations alleged by the Commission in its submission and Merits Report, and it refers to the individuals specified by the Commission and the representatives as victims. This Court holds that the acknowledgment of international responsibility is a positive contribution to the development of this case and to the advancement of the principles undergirding the Convention, as well as the need for reparation for the alleged victim. 9 32. As it has in other cases, the Court holds that an acknowledgment of responsibility produces full legal effects, in accordance with Articles 62 and 64 of the Rules of Procedure. 10 This Court finds that there is no longer any dispute as to the facts, the majority of the allegations of law, and the need to adopt measures of reparation. Because of the grave violations in this case, the Court deems it necessary to issue a judgment in which it establishes the facts—consistent with the evidence gathered in these proceedings and bearing in mind the acknowledgment of international responsibility—and examines the alleged human rights violations. This contributes to reparation for the victims, the prevention of similar acts in the future, and, in sum, the fulfillment of the purposes of the inter-American legal system. 11 Moreover, this Court will rule on the measures of reparation, bearing in mind the relevant assertions made by the State. V EVIDENCE A. Documentary evidence 33. The Court received various documents presented as evidence by the Commission, the representatives, and the State, which, as in other cases, it admits with the understanding that they were presented at the proper procedural time (Article 57 of the Rules of Procedure) 12. 34. The Court notes that, along with the final written arguments, the State submitted one annex 13 and the representatives submitted three. 14 Neither the parties nor the Commission submitted observations on the annexes. With respect to the State’s written annex with information reported by the Group for the Search, Identification, and Handover of Disappeared Persons (hereinafter also “GRUBE”) from 2006–2022, as well as the representatives’ Annexes 1 and 2 with information on the search process, this Court admits them and considers them useful for deciding this case, in accordance with Article 58(b) of the Rules of Procedure. Finally, regarding the certification of costs and expenses and the receipts submitted by the representatives in Annex 3, this Court incorporates them into the body of evidence, insofar as they were incurred after the submission of the pleadings and motions brief, which the Court will assess in the corresponding section of this judgment. 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 Aguinaga Aillón v. Ecuador, supra, para. 21. 10 Cf. Case of Benavides Cevallos v. Ecuador, supra, para. 57, and Case of Aguinaga Aillón v. Ecuador, supra, para. 21. 11 Cf. Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 26, 2008. Series C No. 190, para. 26, and Case of Brítez Arce et al. v. Argentina.Merits, reparations, and costs.Judgment of November 16, 2022.Series C No. 474, para. 22. 12 Documentary evidence can be presented—in general and in accordance with Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure—with the submission briefs for the case, with pleadings and motions briefs, or with answering briefs, as appropriate. Evidence submitted outside of these procedural occasions is not admissible except under the circumstances specified in Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure (namely, force majeure, grave impediment) or if it concerns a supervening fact—that is, one that occurred after the specified procedural occasions. Cf. Case of Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2011. Series C No. 237, paras. 17 and 18, and Case of Olivera Fuentes v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of February 4, 2023. Series C No. 484, para.39 and footnote 30. 13 The State attached the following annex: Prosecutor General of the Nation, File No. 20221700092011 of December 5, 2022 (evidence file, folio 14303). 14 The representatives attached the following documents: Annex 1, CCJ Record of May 19, 2021; Annex 2, Record of Specialized Prosecutor 124, May 31, 2021; and Annex 3, Certification of costs and expenses incurred (evidence file, folios 14197, 14199, and 14201–14301). 9 8