8 23. When effecting the partial acknowledgment of international responsibility, the State set forth its disagreement regarding the reparations claimed by the representatives. Therefore, such reparations also are matters still in dispute. * * * 24. The partial acknowledgment of responsibility presented by the State is a positive contribution to the advancement of these proceedings, to the proper disposal of matters before the Inter-American human rights jurisdiction, to the enforcement of the principles that inspire the American Convention, and the conduct of States in this matter.11 25. Taking into account the powers vested in this Court as an international organ, for the protection of human rights, the Court deems it necessary to pass Judgment to determine the facts and all elements pertaining to the merits of the case, as well as the relevant consequences thereof, as the rendering of Judgment contributes to the reparation due to Carmen Cornejo de Albán and Bismarck Albán-Sánchez, and to avoid the repetition of similar events and to attain, all in all, the purposes of the Inter-American human rights jurisdiction.12 V EVIDENCE 26. Based on the provisions in Articles 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as on the case law of the Court regarding evidence and the assessment thereof, the Court will now examine and assess the documentary evidence forwarded by the Commission, by the representatives and by the State at various points throughout the proceedings, or as evidence requested by the President to facilitate adjudication of the case, and testimonial and expert evidence rendered through affidavits and before the Court at the public hearing held in the instant case. In doing so, the Court will follow the rules of competent analysis, within the applicable legal framework.13 A) Documentary, Testimonial and Expert Evidence 11 Cf. Case of Carpio-Nicolle et al. v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2004. Series C No. 117, para. 84; Case of Zambrano-Vélez et al., supra note 9, para. 30; Case of Bueno-Alves v. Argentina. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 164, para. 34; and Case of the Rochela Massacre, supra note 9, para. 29. 12 Cf. Case of Carpio-Nicolle et al, supra note 11, para. 84; Case of Zambrano-Vélez et al., supra note 9, para. 31; Case of Escué-Zapata v. Colombia. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 165, para. 20; and Case of Bueno-Alves, supra note 11, para. 35. 13 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua-Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 76; Case of Cantoral-Huamaní and García-Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, para. 38; Case of Zambrano-Vélez et al., supra note 9, para. 32; and Case of Escué-Zapata, supra note 12, para. 22.