18 That is to say, it ratifies the acknowledgment of responsibility made before the Commission and it ratifies its willingness to establish a committee to monitor and further the domestic criminal proceeding taking place at the time in Guatemala, with the known consequences, that it failed for lack of cooperation by certain bodies the Guatemalan State. Second, it modifies the reply to the application in terms of waiving all preliminary objections raised by the State of Guatemala when it answered the application. Third, it modifies the answer to the application, accepting the facts alleged by the applicant and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights regarding that same responsibility that the State has with respect to the violations of the right to life of Myrna Mack Chang and denial of justice to applicant Helen Mack Chang. The State of Guatemala explains that it does not refer to the causes or motives stated by the distinguished applicant regarding that denial of access to the system of justice and the violations that may have occurred regarding the principle of due process. Fourth, it accepts the rights of the next of kin of the victim, especially of applicant Helen Mack Chang, and finally, it modifies the answer to the application by expressing that the State of Guatemala reiterates its submission to the international jurisdiction of the […] InterAmerican Court of Human Rights for it to decide on the scope of this acknowledgment and, subsequently, to establish the measures of reparation. […] Ratification of the aforementioned aspects is based on the following: even though the Head of State represents national unity according to the Political Constitution of the Republic of Guatemala, the Head of State cannot take on judicial powers, even less so when there is a domestic proceeding that, while slow, institutionally cannot be invaded by the competence of other bodies of the State, circumstances that in any case are to be judged by the […] Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Secondly, intervention by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights [before] this […] Court is legitimate insofar as it will be, as said Commission has also stated, for this [...] Court to rule on the international responsibility of the State in the facts that gave rise to this case and not on the wrongdoing, guilt and possible responsibility of individuals subject to the jurisdiction of the domestic legal system in Guatemala, a statement made by the InterAmerican Commission in its reply to the objections filed. Therefore, the State of Guatemala waives all the preliminary objections raised in its original answer to the application on June 26, 2001. With respect to the last objection, defined as the erroneous and extensive interpretation of the acknowledgment made by the State of Guatemala, it is necessary to emphatically state that, for true hearing of the instant case, it follows from the statement above that while the State waives the last objection, it does so because it was filed as a preliminary objection. It does not desist thereof because it disagrees with its substantive arguments, which have been reiterated above, and for them to be taken into account when the judgment on the merits in the instant case is issued.” 83. During said public hearing, the representatives of the next of kin of the victim referred to the expressions of the State, arguing that it is enabled to “admit its complicity” regarding the acts of its bodies without this involving prejudgment of the rights of specific individuals. Said representatives also pointed out several facts pertaining to the death of Myrna Mack Chang and the investigation and criminal proceeding that, in their opinion, the State did not mention in its acknowledgment of responsibility and that it is necessary to determine so as to establish the truth in this case. 84. In turn, during the public hearing the Inter-American Commission stated that the partial acknowledgment of responsibility by the State before the Court had already occurred before the Commission; that said acknowledgment is based on the Political Constitution of the State and not on International Law; that it does not clearly establish the facts for which it deems that it is responsible; and that it does not specify the rights that it acknowledges were breached. The Commission also pointed out that the Court could consider the scope of this partial and generic acknowledgment when it issues its judgment on the merits.