16 the instant case. Therefore, the Court decided to continue holding the public hearing that had been summoned (supra paras. 37 and 38). Specifically, the Court found that there continue[d] to be a dispute among [the parties] regarding [the] scope of the acknowledgment of responsibility by the State regarding the facts that took place in the instant case that were not included in the acknowledgment of responsibility by the State; the alleged violations of Articles 1(1), 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention; the alleged violations of Articles 19 and 22 of said treaty alleged by the representatives, as well as regarding reparations and costs6. 68. Subsequently, despite the terms in which said acknowledgment was issued, in its final oral pleadings and briefs the State made a number of statements regarding the responsibility of the State for the facts of the instant case, to the effect that it should not be found responsible for acts that are not directly attributable to Agents of the State, which could call into question the true nature of its partial acknowledgment of responsibility. In view of this, based on the authority reflected in Article 55 of its Rules of Procedure, the Court will establish the scope and juridical effects of said acknowledgment, after clarifying the content of State responsibility in the framework of the American Convention. For this reason, the Court deems it pertinent to open a chapter on the facts of the instant case, encompassing both the facts acknowledged by the State in its acquiescence and those proven by the set of items in the file. 69. Likewise, given the nature of the instant case, the Court deems that issuing a judgment that establishes the truth of the facts and all the points regarding the merits of the matter, as well as the respective consequences, constitutes a form of reparation for the victims of the Mapiripán Massacre and their next of kin and, in turn, a way of avoiding recidivism of similar events. VII EVIDENCE 70. Before examining the evidence tendered, in this chapter the Court will refer to several general considerations, in light of the provisions of Articles 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure, that are applicable to the specific case, most of which have been developed in the jurisprudence of the Court itself. 71. The principle parties to defense, Procedure takes this must be tendered for of adversarial proceedings, which respects the right of the applies to evidentiary matters. Article 44 of the Rules of principle into account, as regards the moment when evidence there to be equality among the parties.7 72. According to the practice of the Court, at the start of each procedural stage the parties must state what evidence they will offer, on the first opportunity given to them to make a written statement. Furthermore, exercising the discretionary 6 See Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”. Preliminary Objections and Acknowledgment of Responsibility, supra note 1, para. 29. 7 See Case of Acosta Calderón. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 40; Case of Yatama. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 127, para. 106, and Case of Fermín Ramírez. Judgment of June 20, 2005. Series C No. 126, para. 43.