16 position. The Commission also requested that the preliminary objections raised by the State be rejected for lack of legal and factual grounds (supra para. 26). 75. As was summarized above (supra para. 40), on February 14, 2003, the State submitted a new brief requesting that the public hearing be called off, and at the same time explaining the scope of the acknowledgment of institutional responsibility, and it affirmed that: […] it has decided to maintain and reiterate before [the Inter-American Court of Human Rights], in the same and literal terms stated before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in March, 2000, the international acceptance of its Institutional Responsibility in the Myrna Mack Chang case No. 10,636. 76. With respect to the aforementioned brief, on February 17, 2003 the Commission stated that the institutional acknowledgment by Guatemala “reproduces the terms of the acknowledgment of responsibility on March 3, 2000, prior to the decision by the [Commission] to submit the case to the jurisdiction of the [...] Court,” and that said acknowledgment “is not generic but partial and therefore it does not tend to fully elucidate the facts, nor is it an effective remedy for the violations that are the object of the application filed by the Commission.” Furthermore, the Commission deemed that “fully establishing the facts in [this] case, partly acknowledged by the State as not having been elucidated, constitutes a fundamental function of international monitoring, because it makes it possible to establish the truth of what happened through the inter-American system [...]”. Therefore, the Commission asked the Court to continue processing the case, to determine the scope of the acknowledgment of responsibility of the State and the facts that gave rise to the application; to determine the violations to the American Convention; and to order the appropriate reparations (supra para. 41). 77. The representatives of the next of kin of the victim, in turn, stated -referring to the February 14, 2003 brief by the State- that the “acknowledgment” made by the State is a “generic and vague” acquiescence that intends to “leave the case without substance” and “force the Court to move directly into the reparations stage,” without allowing the Court to rule on a number of facts directly pertaining to the merits of the instant case. They also stated that, “after twelve years, the next of kin of the victim and Guatemalan society have the right to obtain more than a presumption of responsibility […] they have a right to the truth through full elucidation of the facts” (supra para. 41). 78. On February 18, 2003, during the preliminary meeting with the parties prior to the public hearing summoned for that same day, the State submitted a “brief modifying the answer of the State of Guatemala to the application filed by the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights in the Myrna Mack Chang Case No. 10,636 of July 26, 2001” (supra para. 42), in which it reiterated several arguments made in its answer to the application and, furthermore, stated the following: as a consequence of what it has stated before the [...] Commission [...] on March 3, 2000 and of partial ratification of the answer to the application made in the immediately preceding section of this brief, it must desist from the preliminary objections raised on September 26, 2001 […]. With respect to the preliminary objection regarding erroneous and extensive interpretation of the acknowledgment made by the State, it pointed out that it