the presumed victims or their next of kin to submit autonomously their brief with pleadings, motions and evidence and put forward claims that may or may not coincide with those of the Commission. Consequently, when the State submits an acknowledgment of responsibility, it must indicate clearly whether it also accepts the claims made by the presumed victims or their next of kin.7 23. The Court observes that the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility involves acquiescence to some of the legal arguments made by both the Inter-American Commission and the representatives. However, the State explicitly opposed the Court examining the other human rights violations they had alleged. Moreover, the State acknowledged only some of the presumed victims in the case. Lastly, the State argued that it had already provided compensation to several of the presumed victims in the instant case, and although it accepted some of the claims for reparation requested by the representatives, it opposed others. 24. In addition to the foregoing, the Court observes that, during the public hearing, when referring to the acknowledgment of responsibility made in the answering brief, the State did not reiterate its acknowledgement of the violation of the rights recognized in Articles 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, or its failure to comply with the obligation established in Article I of the Convention on Forced Disappearance to the detriment of Ramona Lajuj and Manuel Chen Sánchez, presumed victims of forced disappearance. On this point, in its final written arguments, the InterAmerican Commission indicated that the State had infringed the principle of estoppel, and therefore asked the Court to “understand that the position of the Guatemalan State indicated in its [answering] brief is the valid one,” and grant it full legal effects. In this regard, the Court observes that, in its final written arguments, the State once again reiterated its acknowledgment of responsibility for the forced disappearance of Ramona Lajuj and Manuel Chen Sánchez in the terms of paragraph 17(a) of this Judgment. Therefore, since there is no longer a dispute on this matter, the Court will take into account the said acknowledgment of responsibility. 25. In addition, as already stated in this Judgment, in its answering brief, the State acknowledged the violation of the right to freedom of residence recognized in Article 22 of the American Convention (supra para. 17(g)), and explicitly contested the allegation of a violation of the right to freedom of movement, also established in the said provision (supra para. 18(f)); a position it maintained during the public hearing. Nevertheless, in its final written arguments, the State indicated the exact opposite; in other words, it acknowledged the violation of the right to freedom of movement but contested the violation of the right to freedom of residence. Regarding the latter, it asked the Court to take into account the reparations that supposedly have already been made through the National Electricity Institute (INDE). In this regard, the Court recalls that, according to international practice, when a party to a litigation has adopted a specific position to its own benefit or to the detriment of the other party, under the estoppel principle it cannot later take a different position that contradicts the first one and changes the situation used by the other party as a reference point.8 In this case, at the first procedural opportunity, the State acquiesced to the violation of the right to freedom of residence and it was in those terms that the Inter7 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 107, and Case of Torres Millacura v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 26, 2011. Series C No. 229, para. 34. 8 Cf. Case of Neira Alegría et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objections. Judgment of December 11, 1991. Series C No. 13, para. 29, and Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2011. Series C No. 227, para. 36. 12