9 30. The Court considers that the partial acknowledgement of responsibility made by the State constitutes an important step towards the development of this proceeding, the appropriate conduction of the Inter-American jurisdiction on human rights in general, the enforcement of the principles underlying the American Convention and the practice of the States in this matter12. 31. Having regard both to its responsibility to watch over the greater protection of human rights and to the context in which the facts of the instant case happened, the Tribunal considers it necessary to issue a judgment in which it adjudicates on the facts and on all the relevant elements of the merits of the case, as well as on the corresponding consequences thereof. Such judgment constitutes a form of reparation to the family members of Wilmer Zambrano Vélez, Segundo Olmedo Caicedo Cobeña and Miguel Caicedo Cobeña, as well as a way to contribute to the preservation of the historical memory, to avoid the repetition of similar facts and to fulfill, in short, the purposes of the Inter-American jurisdiction on human rights13. As such, notwithstanding the scope of the partial acknowledgement of responsibility made by the State, the Court deems it relevant to appreciate the facts of the instant case, both those acknowledged by Ecuador (supra paras. 17-21) and those presented in the application. Moreover, the Court deems it necessary to clarify certain matters regarding how the violations have taken place in the context and under the circumstances of this particular case, as well as regarding certain consequences related to the obligations established in the American Convention. To that effect, the Court will include in this Judgment the respective chapters, in which it will also analyze the facts, the allegations on the merits of the case and the eventual reparations over which the dispute remains open regarding the international responsibility of the State. V EVIDENCE 32. Pursuant to the provisions of Articles 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure and to the Court’s case-law regarding evidence and its assessment14, the Court will proceed to examine and assess the documentary evidence submitted by the Commission and the representatives at the different procedural stages or as evidence requested by the President to facilitate the adjudication of the case. The Court will also examine and assess the witnesses and expert witnesses’ declarations provided by affidavit or before the Court. To that effect, the Court shall abide by the principles of sound criticism, within the corresponding legal framework15. A) DOCUMENTARY, TESTIMONIAL AND EXPERT EVIDENCE 33. The Court points out that at the time of serving the application, following instructions from the President and considering the Commission’s request at paragraph 135 of its application, the Cf. Case of Bueno Alves, supra note 8, para. 34; Case of the Rochela Massacre, supra note 7, para. 29; Case of La Cantuta, supra note 7, para 56. 12 Cf. Case of Bueno Alves, supra note 8, paras. 35; Case of the Rochela Massacre, supra note 7, para. 54; Case of La Cantuta, supra note 7, para. 57. 13 Cf. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, para. 86; Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua-Morales et al.). Reparations. Judgment of May 15, 2001. Series C No. 76, para. 50 and Case of Bámaca-Velásquez. Reparations. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 15. See also Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 183-184; Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, paras. 67, 68 and 69, and Case of Servellón-García et al. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, para. 34. 14 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua-Morales et al.). Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 76; Case of Bueno Alves, supra note 8, para. 38, and Case of the Rochela Massacre, supra note 7, para. 59. 15