proceedings. Nevertheless, in the interest of ensuring a better understanding of the State’s international responsibility in this case and ensuring that this Judgment also constitutes a form of reparation for the victims and helps to prevent the repetition of similar violations, the Court finds it necessary to present a summary of the facts of this case (infra paras. 32 to 51) and of the human rights violations included in the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility (infra paras. 52 to 62). 30. In view of the foregoing, and given that “the dispute on the facts of the case and the international responsibility of the State of Mexico has ceased” (supra paras. 11, 15 and 22), the Court deems it unnecessary to grant the parties’ request, also agreed to by the Commission, that it “develop international standards on the guarantees that must be respected in order to give evidentiary value to a confession, and in the application of the principle of procedural immediacy in light of the guarantees provided for in the Convention” (supra para. 15 and 16), a request that was also made in a fairly general and abstract manner. 31. Moreover, the Court notes that with regard to the alleged interpretation “of the principle of procedural immediacy within the Mexican legal system” which, according to the Commission, has been issued by the Supreme Court of Justice and other Mexican circuit courts25, no specific reference was made to those precedents in the criminal convictions and appeals in this case examined in the Report on Merits. VI. B) SUMMARY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE 32. Given that the State acknowledged its international responsibility in relation to “all the facts contained in Report No. 138/11” of the Commission, the Court will proceed to summarize the facts of the case, bearing in mind that they are described in Chapter “V. Established Facts” of the Report (paragraphs 42 to 120), along with other factual determinations contained in Chapter “VI. Legal Analysis” (paragraphs 121 to 249 of the Report) on aspects that involved a more detailed analysis and evaluation of the evidence. Likewise, the Court will briefly explain some significant facts that occurred after the adoption of said Report (infra VI. B.4). 33. Messrs. Juan García Cruz and Santiago Sánchez Silvestre were criminally prosecuted in two cases: a) for the crimes of “possession of firearms for the exclusive use of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force; Criminal Association and Rebellion” (criminal proceeding No. 66/97); and b) for “the crimes of homicide, injury, violent robbery, organized crime and damage to property” (criminal proceeding No. 172/97).26 B.1) Arrest, subjection to torture and first statements in the preliminary inquiry phase 34. On June 6, 1997, Judicial Police agents of the Federal District arrested Messrs. Juan García Cruz and Santiago Sánchez Silvestre without a warrant.27 At the time, they were aged 20 and 37 25 Cf. Report on Merits No. 138/11, paras. 232, 233 and 236. Cf. Report on Merits No. 138/11, paras. 42 and 69. 27 Regarding the legality of the arrest, the Commission maintained that “the judicial authorities […] did not conduct additional or effective criminal investigations to confirm or reject the allegations” of Messrs. García Cruz and Sánchez Silvestre regarding the violations of their right to personal liberty. The Commission noted that in their report, the officers who carried out the arrest stated that “the arrest was made in flagrante on Ignacio Zaragoza Street, near the ‘Santa Martha Acatitla’ metro station”. They also noted that, on the contrary, Messrs. García Cruz and Sánchez Silvestre 26 10