6 medical and psychological treatment to the [alleged] victim’s next of kin, according to their vision of the world. 19. Nevertheless, the State denied “the measures of reparations lately requested by the Inter-American Commission in the public hearing", as well as the following measures for reparations: Promotion of formation processes of young leaders in the Resguardo de Jambaló; publication of a book about Mr. Escué Zapata’s life; protection of indigenous autonomy and support of the life plan of the Community; elimination of the registry of indigenous leaders from the Municipality and continuation of the project of a community store. As a result, the Court declares that these facts are still disputed. * * * 20. The Court considers that the acknowledgment of international responsibility made by the State constitutes an important step towards the development of this process, the proper fulfillment of the Inter-American human rights jurisdictional function and, in general, the enforcement of the principles enshrined by the American Convention.9 21. Considering that there is a controversy over the arguments of law and of fact, and taking into account the powers vested in the Court for the protection of human rights, the Court considers that a judgment adjudicating on the issues of fact and on all the elements of the merits of the case, as well as on the consequences thereof, would contribute to redress the damage inflicted upon Mr. Escué Zapata and would help prevent similar facts from taking place in the future and, in sum, achieve the purposes of the Inter-American jurisdiction on human rights.10 V EVIDENCE 22. Based on the provisions of Articles 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as on the Court’s case law regarding the evidence and the assessment thereof11, the Court will now examine and assess the documentary evidence forwarded by the Commission, the representative, and the State at the different procedural stages or as evidence to facilitate the adjudication of the case as requested by the President, as well as the testimonial and experts’ opinions offered. In doing so, the Tribunal will assess them on the basis of sound judgment, within the applicable legal framework.12 9 Cf. Case of Carpio-Nicolle et al. v. Guatemala. Judgment of November 22, 2004. Series C No. 117, para. 84; Case of Bueno-Alves v. Argentina. Judgment on Merits, Reparations and Costs of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 164, para. 34, and Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 7, para. 29. 10 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre" v. Colombia. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 69; Case of Bueno-Alves v. Argentina, supra note 9, par. 35, and Case of the Rochela Massacre, supra note 7, para. 54. 11 Cf. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community. Judgment of August 31, 2001 . Series C No. 79, para. 86 to 90; Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua-Morales et al.) v Guatemala. Reparations Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76, para. 50, and Case of Bámaca-Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 15. 12 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala; supra note 11, para. 76; Case of Bueno-Alves v. Argentina, supra note 9, para. 36, and Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 7, para. 55.