18 acquiescence of the legal claims included in the Commission’s application and in the representatives’ brief of pleadings and motions. 64. On the other hand, the Tribunal warns that there is still controversy between the parties regarding the alleged violation to Articles 4 (Right to Life) and 3 (Right to Juridical Personality) in detriment of Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco, to Article 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), in detriment of “the community where Mr. Radilla-Pacheco lived”, to Article 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), in relation to certain guarantees of the due process, to Article 13 (Right to the Freedom of Thought and Expression), in detriment of the next of kin of Mr. Rosendo Radilla in relation to the right to the truth, and 2 (Domestic Legal Effects), all of them contemplated in the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same. Likewise, the controversy with regard to the alleged non-compliance of Articles I, II, III, IX, and XI of the CIDFP as well as the determination of the eventual reparations subsists. 65. Regarding the alleged victims, the State, in its response to the application, only accepted as such three of the twelve next of kin mentioned as alleged victims in the application under the argument that the other people (the wife and the other nine children of Mr. Radilla-Pacheco) were not mentioned in the Commission’s report on merits. Therefore, the controversy regarding who shall be considered alleged victims subsists. Thus, the Court will proceed to their determination in the corresponding chapter (infra paras. 104 through 113), on the base of its jurisprudence and the evidence presented in this sense. * ** 66. The Court values the acknowledgment and partial admission of the facts and the acquiescence regarding some of the claims made by the State. After having examined said acknowledgment, and taking into account that stated by the Commission and the representatives, it considers it necessary to issue a Judgment in which it shall determine the facts and all the elements of the merits of the matter, as well as the corresponding consequences in what refers to the reparations.42 VI EVIDENCE 67. Based on the stipulations of Articles 46, 47, and 49 of the Rules of Procedures, as well as with the jurisprudence of the Tribunal regarding evidence and its assessment,43 the Court will proceed to examine and assess the documentary evidentiary elements forwarded by the parties on different procedural opportunities, as well as the statements offered through affidavit and those received in public hearing (supra paras. 8 and 9), as well as the evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case requested by the President (supra para. 12). For this, the Tribunal will obey the rules of competent analysis, within the corresponding legal framework.44 42 Cf. Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, para. 66; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, supra note 40, para. 47, and Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra note 40, para. 35. 43 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 76; Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil, supra note 32, para. 53, and Case of Dacosta Cadogan v. Barbados. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 24, 2009. Series C No. 204, para. 32. 44 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala, supra note 43, para. 76; Case of