Grijalva reported these facts to his immediate superior, Vice Admiral TL,113 which led to a persecution against Mr. Grijalva, who was relieved of his duties in October 1992 (supra para. 51). A number of crew members were also relieved of their duties, following complaints of alleged irregularities committed by the group of sailors commanded by Mr. Grijalva Bueno. The CEV pointed out that none of these accusations were proven and in fact were denied by the alleged accusers. 127. The CEV also affirmed that between October 7 and 16, 1992, the sailors were summoned to the Naval Intelligence Service in Quito, where they were interrogated and tortured by the officers FM and DS, and the agents EG, MG, LP, SA, JS, AN and EP. The first to arrive at SERINT were JA, FA and HM, who were transferred to the Military Intelligence Academy (AEIM), near Quito, where they were subjected to interrogation under torture during the three days they remained there.114 128. In this regard, the State disputed the factual framework of the CEV report, arguing that the “acknowledgement of responsibility” arising from the Law for the Reparation of Victims only has domestic effects for the institutionalization of the national reparation mechanism; therefore it is not equivalent to an acknowledgement of international responsibility. The State specified that the few references found in the Final Report of the Truth Commission on the military criminal proceedings against Mr. Grijalva Bueno do not imply in any way an acknowledgement of the State’s international responsibility for those facts. 129. The Court recalls that the establishment of a truth commission, depending on the object, procedure, structure and purpose of its mandate, may contribute to the construction and preservation of historical memory, the clarification of facts and the determination of institutional, social, and political responsibilities in certain historical periods of a society.115 Similarly, the use of said report does not exempt this Court from assessing the entire body of evidence, in accordance with the rules of logic and based on experience.116 Consequently, this Court will take into account the Report of the Truth Commission of Ecuador as a means of evidence to be assessed together with the rest of the body of evidence. 130. That said, in the instant case it has been demonstrated that in July 1992, SERINT opened an investigation against Mr. Grijalva and other members of the Ecuadorian Navy, and issued a confidential report in which it concluded that said persons had committed various unlawful acts in the course of their duties. The hierarchical superior at SERINT was Captain FM, who had been denounced by Mr. Grijalva. The General Inspectorate of the Navy, which created a commission to investigate these facts, also concluded that Mr. Grijalva and other sailors had allegedly participated in these illegal acts. Based on the aforementioned reports, and adopting their contents as its own, the Council of Senior Officers decided to dismiss Mr. Grijalva, a decision that became final Cf. Report of the Truth Commission, “Without Truth there is no Justice”, Tome IV: Case reports (evidence file, folio 3559). 114 In addition, the statements provided by other seamen are transcribed, including DS, FCh, JS, LV, and JCh, who indicated that they were also subjected to such treatment. Cf. Report of the Truth Commission, “Without Truth there is no Justice,” Tome IV: Case reports (evidence file, folios 3560 to 3562). 115 Cf. Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 128, and Case of Vásquez Durand v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 15, 2015. Series C No. 332, para. 114. 116 Cf. Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 194, para. 101, and Case of Vásquez Durand v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 114. 113 33