7 29. With regard to the acknowledgment made by the State, in the public hearing the representatives stated, inter alia, the following: [w]e arrived at the conclusion that [the brief submitted by the State (supra para. 27)] does not amount to an acquiescence from the legal perspective in Article 53(2) of the Rules of the Court and in its case law, since it makes allegations that expressly contest the claims asserted in the application filed by the Inter-American Commission and in the petition filed by the representatives of the victims […] We request that the brief forwarded by the Agent of the Illustrious State of Venezuela be dismissed as an acquiescence and, therefore, as it does not amount to an acquiescence, we request the Court to proceed to deliver a Judgment on the merits and reparations. 30. During the aforementioned public hearing, after the comments made by the Commission and the representatives on the acquiescence by the State to the claims, the State repeated the contents of the brief dated June 28, 2005 (supra para. 27) and stated that it “fully acquiesced,” both with the facts and with the claims asserted by the parties. 31. Immediately following the above-mentioned statements by the Commission, the representatives and the State, Venezuela expressly pointed out, in response to the questions put to it by the President, that: a) it accepted the facts contained in the application and the brief containing pleadings and motions; b) it accepted them “in full”; and, c) it accepted them along with the claims asserted thereupon. 32. On June 28, 2005, after the acquiescence made by the State had been introduced, the Court issued an Order wherein it decided to admit the acknowledgment of international responsibility effected by the State, that there were no longer any facts in dispute and that the proceedings on the case should go on. 33. On July 28, 2005, the Commission, the representatives and the State submitted their final written arguments. 34. On October 4, 2005, the Secretariat, following the instructions of the President, requested the representatives to submit, as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case, under Article 45 of the Rules of Procedure, a copy of the birth certificates or identity cards of the following persons: Orailis del Valle Blanco, Aida Benirgia Hernández-Paz, Nélida Marina Hernández-Paz, Mirna Esperanza Hernández-Paz, Aleidy Maritza Hernández-Paz, Brizania Hernández-Paz, Reina Alejandra Antune-Paz, Ramón Alberto Paz, Carlos Paz, Eneida Josefina RivasFernández, Yelitza Isabel Rivas-Fernández, Luis Ernesto Rivas-Fernández, Rubén Alexis Rivas-Fernández, Miguel Enrique Galindo-Fernández-Rivas and José Daniel Rivas-Martínez. 35. On October 18, 2005, the representatives forwarded to the Court the evidence to facilitate the adjudication of the case requested on October 4, 2005, and reported it was impossible to submit the identity card of Mrs. Brizania HernándezPaz, because “it had been very difficult for her next of kin to reach her.” V Evidence