State’s competent bodies the explanation of the violating facts and the corresponding responsibilities, through the investigation and prosecution that result from Articles 8 121 and 25 of the Convention.” It is also definitely necessary to understand, as stated by the Commission, that said right to know the truth, as part of the acknowledgment of the Right to a Fair Trial (Article 8) and Judicial Protection (Article 25) acknowledged by the American Convention on Human Rights, corresponds individually to each victim, but also to the Guatemalan society in general. I consider there are enough precedents of this Court to substantiate said criterion122 and therefore, I found it necessary to clarify why, despite the acknowledgment of responsibility by the State of Guatemala and its acquiescence during the processing of the case sub judice, it was, in my opinion, necessary to continue with the examination of the case, pursuant with the aforementioned Article 55 of the Rules of Procedure and issue the judgment with which I fully concurred. B.- Evidentiary value of the reports of the CEH and the REMHI. More than once the evidentiary value or appropriateness of the documents and reports of the Historic Explanation Commission –CEH- (Guatemala, Memories of Silence), as well as of the Report of the Inter-Diocese Project “Recovery of Historic Memory” –REMHI- of the Human Rights Office of the Archbishopric of Guatemala (“Guatemala, Nunca Más”) have been questioned both internally within Guatemala and before international 123 However, both competent national courts in Guatemala and this instances. 124 have received, assessed, and taken into account as evidence, the reports of Court the CEH as well as the REMHI. The present judgment reiterates the evidentiary value of these documents (paragraph 38 and footnotes number 34; 37; 38; 62; and 63). There must be no doubt regarding the pertinent criterion of this judgment stating that the reports and documents used for the preparation of the same and presented by the CEH and the REMHI may have the value of documentary evidence, direct or indirect, main or subsidiary, if they are relevant for the specific case in question, either at a national or international level. The Agreement on the Establishment of the Commission for the Historic Explanation of the Violations to Human Rights and the Acts of Violence that have caused suffering to the Guatemalan People”125 (hereinafter the “Agreement on the Establishment of the CEH”) states, as part of the purposes of 121 Cfr. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Repartions, and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 148. 122 Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. v. Guatemala; Case of Montero Arangueren et al. (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela; Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru, are just some of these precedents. 123 For example, see the separate and partially dissenting opinion of the Judge ad hoc Martínez Gálvez in the case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala, as well as section VI of the Judgment issued by the Constitutionality Court of Guatemala in case file No. 3380-2007. 124 Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre v. Guatemala and Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. 125 “Agreement on the establishment of the Commission for the Historic Explanation of the violations to human rights and the facts of violence that have caused suffering to the Guatemalan people,” signed in Oslo, Norway, June 23, 1994. Within its initial Considerations, there are the following: “Considering that the contemporary history of our country registers grave facts of violence, of disrespect to people’s fundamental rights and suffering of the population linked to the armed conflict;” “Considering the right of the people of Guatemala to fully know the truth about these events whose explanation will contribute to avoid the repetition of these sad and painful pages and to strengthen the country’s democratization process.” 47