-37178. Applying the estoppel rule to the instant case, and based on the foregoing, this Court gives full effects to and admits the acknowledgement of responsibility, as a result of which the State is responsible […] for infringing the SITRAMUN workers’ human rights set forth in Articles 25(2)(c) of the American Convention on Human Rights.23 179. Before the Court, said acknowledgment of responsibility is partial, since the common intervener has alleged before the Tribunal the infringement of Articles 16, 25(1), 26, 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention, which are outside of the scope of such acknowledgment. 180. The State’s acknowledgement of responsibility for violating Article 25(2)(c) of the Convention implied the acknowledgement of responsibility with respect to the 24 final judgments that are part of the instant case. As far as concerns the judgment issued by the Sala Especializada de Derecho Público (Public Law Specialized Chamber) on June 6, 1997 (infra para. 204(15)), which is one of the 24 judgments mentioned above, the Court has noted that it was not included in the Report on the Merits No. 66/02. However, the Commission did include it in the Admissibility Report No. 85/01 and in the application, so Peru knew that it was alleged that it had failed to comply with the judgment when it acknowledged its international responsibility after the Admissibility Report was issued (supra para. 152), and Peru failed to raise any objection in such respect to the Court. 181. In the following Articles the Court will analyze the merits of the case and any applicable reparations concerning which the dispute over the responsibility of the State is still open , and all other items that the Court deems necessary to analyze either because they have been alleged or because they have arisen only during the processing of the case before the Court. VII EVIDENCE 182. Before examining the evidence tendered, the Court will state, in the light of the provisions set forth in Articles 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure, a No. of points arising from precedents established in the precedents of the Tribunal, and applicable to the instant case. 183. Evidence is governed by the adversary principle, which embodies due respect for the parties’ right to defense. This principle underlies Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure, inasmuch as it refers to the time when evidence must be tendered, so that equality among the parties may prevail.24 184. In accordance with Court practice, at the beginning of each procedural stage, the parties must state, at the first opportunity granted them to do so in writing, the 23 Cf. brief of January 17, 2003 submitted by Peru to the Commission, and Report No. 66/02 issued by the Commission on October 11, 2002. 24 Cf. Case of Blanco-Romero et al. Judgment of November 28, 2005. Series C No. 138, para. 37; Case of García-Asto and Ramírez-Rojas, supra note 16, para. 82; and Case of Gómez-Palomino, supra note 21, para. 45.