8 which gave rise to the presentation of the petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights […], had occurred.” 38. During the first public hearing on April 26, 2004, the Inter-American Commission indicated that it considered that the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility (supra para. 36) was a positive measure and accepted the withdrawal of the preliminary objections filed by the State. The Commission noted that Guatemala accepted the facts of the case and acknowledged the violation of the rights cited in both the application and the brief with requests, arguments and evidence submitted by the representatives. The Commission also requested that it be considered that the facts of the instant case had been established and that the Court include them in its judgment. Finally, the Commission requested the Court to determine the legal effects of the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility, in accordance with Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure, and to “decide to commence the reparations stage.” The arguments of the representatives of the victim and his next of kin 39. During the public hearing of April 26, 2004, the representatives of the victim and his next of kin stated that they appreciated the State’s acknowledgement of its responsibility concerning the facts and rights set out in their brief with requests, arguments and evidence and in the Commission’s application. They also accepted the State’s withdrawal of its preliminary objections. However, regarding the consequences of the acknowledgement of the facts and the State’s international responsibility, the representatives indicated that reparation for the forced disappearance of Marco Antonio Molina Theissen and for the violations perpetrated against his next of kin requires that the truth be established. In this regard, the representatives requested the Court to deliver a judgment that establishes the causes and consequences of the disappearance of Marco Antonio Molina Theissen, the modus operandi of the State with regard “to the disappearance of children,” the institutional actors involved in the facts, and the acts and omissions of the State that entail its international responsibility, because they considered that the Court’s judgment plays a fundamental role in restoring the rights of the victims. * * * ESTABLISHED FACTS 40. The Court considers that the following facts have been established: Concerning the internal armed conflict and the forced disappearance of persons 40(1) When the facts took place, the forced disappearance of persons was a State practice carried out principally by members of the security forces. The purpose of this practice was to dismantle movements or organizations that the State identified as having “insurgency” tendencies and to instill fear into the population; 40(2) The State based itself on the “National Security Doctrine” to characterize a person as “subversive” or as an “internal enemy,” and this could be anyone, who genuinely or allegedly supported the fight to change the established order. The victims hailed from all sectors of Guatemalan