23 The State also reiterated “that, in the instant case, excessive delay in the criminal proceeding seriously breaches reasonable term, especially taking into account, in addition to the specifics of the case, the juridical rights, obligations, and values at stake.” 96. Finally, the State pointed out that: [t]he fundamental purpose of this presentation [...] has been to explain the mistake committed in the note address[ed] to you on February 14 and, specifically, in the presentation by the State of Guatemala before the […] Court at the public hearing held on February 18 of this year. In other words, the only purpose of this presentation is to clarify what was the true intention of the State of Guatemala when it acknowledged international responsibility before the […] Court in case 10,636. Finally, the Minister of Foreign Affairs apologized for the problems caused by “the mistake regarding the acknowledgment of responsibility by the State of Guatemala.” The President of the Court, in turn, thanked the Minister of Foreign Affairs for his visit and informed him that the brief delivered would be immediately included in the case file. He also stated that the oral stage of the case had concluded, for which reason the case was in the judgment stage. 97. On March 14, 2003, the Commission filed its observations on the brief by the State mentioned in the previous paragraph, reiterating several of its previous arguments (supra para. 49). The Commission also expressed that: it appreciates the acquiescence of the State but, due to the procedural stage of the case, it deems it insufficient. The Commission notes that the acquiescence of the State refers to the facts stated in the application, excluding those contained in the brief filed by the representatives of the victim, which complemented the application and reinforced the conclusions of the [Commission], as well as all those duly established at the public hearing before the [...] Court. The Commission also reiterated its request for the Court to render judgment on the merits in the Myrna Mack Chang case, expressly ruling on the scope and juridical effects of the acquiescence by the State, applying the authority given to it by Article 52(2) of the Rules of Procedure, to ensure legal certainty. 98. On March 14, 2003, the representatives of the next of kin of the victim, in turn, also submitted their observations on the March 3, 2003 brief by the State, in which they reiterated their previous arguments (supra para. 49). They also deemed that this brief by the State is a “new attempt to avoid a ruling by this [...] Court on the merits of the case” and that the State seeks to accept only the juridical consequences derived from the facts, and not the facts established in the application filed by the Commission, in the brief filed by the representatives of the next of kin of the victim and at the public hearing, which contradicts the case law of the Court regarding Article 52 of its Rules of Procedure. Therefore, they asked the Court to reject the acquiescence of the State and to issue a judgment on the merits and reparations to ensure the principle of legal certainty. Finally, they pointed out that in case “the expressions of the State [...] are deemed a satisfactory acquiescence under the terms of Article 52, […] in accordance with the case law of the Court, [this] does not impede the Court ruling on the merits of the case.” 99. In the brief with its final pleadings, the Commission reiterated its request to the Court regarding the need for it to rule on the scope and the effects of the acquiescence of the State (supra para. 52) and pointed out that: