22 validation,” since “[i]t is a report that did not include the works developed by the cabinet area of the Public Prosecutors’ Office itself, but instead only those of a specific area oriented to the recollection of material from files […], thus, it does not examine in detail specific cases.” According to that indicated by the State, the General Office of Analysis, Investigation, and Documentary Information was the area of the Special Prosecutors’ Office in charge of the elaboration of the mentioned report, and the same was made up by different people belonging to the Special Prosecutors’ Office who did not enjoy the classification of agents of the public prosecutors’ office nor did they have access to the actions of the preliminary inquiries. However, the State indicated that this general office was the “[o]nly one empowered to gather information considered useful for its analysis, classification, systematization, recording, and control, in order to evaluate if the information included historical data regarding the social and political crimes of the past, for the correct integration of the preliminary inquiries.” In that sense, the State mentioned that “[o]nly with the results of the preliminary inquiries that make up the preliminary examination could […] the historical truth […] be established and not solely based on the context established in the mentioned report, based on sources such as books, newspapers, magazines, web pages, legal instruments, and bibliographical sources[,] among others.” Finally, the State reiterated that “even if the […] Court did not take into account the fact that the […] Report does not have an official nature for the State of Mexico, [its] content […] referring, in some of its parts, to the context in which the facts being examined occurred, should not be heard by the Court itself […] because that context occurred at a moment prior to the acknowledgment of the contentious jurisdiction […] by the State of Mexico, and also, even, before the acknowledgment and adherence to the American Convention itself.” Therefore, the State requested that the Court “disregard” the mentioned report. 74. The Tribunal considers it appropriate to remember that, on other occasions,51 it has decided to grant a special evidentiary value to the reports of the Commissions of the Truth or Historical Elucidation as relevant evidence in the determination of the facts and the international responsibility of the States. Thus, the Court has stated that, according to the object, procedure, structure, and purpose of its mandate, those Commissions may contribute to the construction and preservation of the historical memory, the elucidation of the facts, and the determination of institutional, social, and political responsibilities during specific historical periods of a society.52 75. In the present case, the Court observes that persons who enjoyed the position of public officials, which has been acknowledged by the State, prepared the mentioned Report. In that sense, their actions, among them, the writing of the mentioned report, enjoy a relevance that cannot be ignored by the Tribunal. Added to the above, the Court points out that the State’s defense falls upon the non-recognition of the report in its totality. However, in what refers to documentary evidence, the State did not invalidate the specific information 51 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala, supra note 40, paras. 131 and 134; Case of Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2003. Series C No. 103, para. 56; Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of April 29, 2004. Series C No. 105, para. 42; Case of the Cruz Flores v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 18, 2004. Series C No. 115, para. 61; Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, para. 54; Case of Baldeón García v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 72; Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, supra note 19, para. 82; Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 80; Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 197; Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 128; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra note 24, footnote 37, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 44, para. 119. 52 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala, supra note 40, paras. 131 and 134; Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador, supra note 51, para. 128, and Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, supra note 24, footnote 37.