b.3 Regarding the reparations 29. Regarding the measures of reparation, the Court finds that the State argued the reparations requested by both the Commission and the representatives were inadmissible, without prejudice to the pleadings it made to adjust some of them in its final written arguments (see infra Chapter IX). Therefore, the dispute in this respect persists in its entirety. b.4 Conclusions: assessment of partial recognition of responsibility 30. The recognition made by the State constitutes a partial acceptance of the facts and a partial recognition of the alleged violations. It has full legal effects, pursuant to articles 62 and 64 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, as indicated. Additionally, the Court notes that the recognition of specific facts and violations may have consequences on and impact this Court’s analysis of the other alleged facts and violations, to the extent that they are all part of the same set of circumstances. 27 31. In considering the violations recognized by the State and the request of the parties and the Commission, the Court does not deem it necessary to discuss the points that were the object of the recognition of responsibility, indicated in the preceding paragraphs of this section. The Court also deems it necessary to deliver a judgment in which it determines all the facts that took place based on the evidence provided in the proceedings before it and the State’s recognition of them, as doing so contributes to providing victims with reparations, preventing similar facts from being repeated, and, essentially, fulfilling the purpose of the inter-American human rights jurisdiction. 28 The Court will also examine the origin and scope of the violations invoked by the Commission and the representatives regarding which the dispute persists. Lastly, the Court will rule on the remaining dispute regarding the reparations requested by the Commission and the representatives. VI EVIDENCE A. Admissibility of the documentary evidence 32. The Court received various documents presented as evidence by the Commission, the representatives, and the State, which, as in other cases, it admits in the understanding that they were presented at the appropriate procedural moment (Article 57 of the Rules of Procedure). 29 33. The Court also received documents attached to the State's observations on the final lists of declarants presented by the representatives and the Inter-American Commission. 30 This Court notes Cf. Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (the Disappeared from the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 14, 2014. Series C No. 287, para. 27, and Case of Vicky Hernández et al v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of March 26, 2021. Series C No. 422, para. 23. 27 Cf. Case of Tu Tojin v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2008. Series C No. 190, para. 26; and Case of Almeida v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 17, 2020. Series C No. 416, para. 23. 28 Documentary evidence, in general and pursuant to Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure, may be presented with the application brief, the pleadings and motions brief, or the answering brief, as applicable, and evidence submitted outside these procedural opportunities cannot be admitted, except in the event of the exceptions stated in the aforementioned Article 57(2) of the Rules of Procedure (namely, force majeure, serious impediment) or it refers to an event which occurred after the procedural moments indicated. Cf. Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2011. Series C No. 237, paras. 17 and 18, and Case of Moya Solís v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 3, 2021. Series C No. 425, para. 34. 29 30 The State had attached eight documents: 1) Victims’ Unit, Jineth Bedoya Lima’s certification in the Unified Victims Registry, February 19, 2020; 2) Curriculum vitae of Ana María Reyes, published on the Boston University website; 3) Curriculum vitae of Ana María Reyes, provided by the representatives of the alleged victims, as an annex to the brief of 12