9 37. The Court values the State's partial acknowledgment and acceptance of the facts, as well as its partial acquiescence to some of the claims, and considers that this attitude is a positive contribution to the development of this proceeding, to the proper functioning of the Inter-American jurisdiction on human rights, to the validity of the principles that inspire the American Convention, and the conduct to which States are bound in this matter, by virtue of the commitments undertaken as parties to international instruments on human rights.9 The Tribunal notes that the State has demonstrated this same willingness in similar cases before this Court.10 38. However, having examined the acknowledgment of responsibility of the State and taking into account the arguments of the Commission and the representatives, as well as the nature and gravity of the facts alleged and the violations incurred, the Tribunal finds it necessary to deliver a Judgment establishing the facts and determining the merits of the case, as well as the corresponding consequences regarding reparations.11 V EVIDENCE 39. Based on Articles 46 and 47 of the Rules of Procedure and on the Court's jurisprudence regarding evidence and its assessment,12 the Court shall examine and assess the documentary evidence submitted by the parties at different procedural stages, the affidavits rendered by alleged victims, witnesses, and expert witnesses, the declarations received at the public hearing (supra para. 6), and the evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case requested by the President (supra paras. 10, 11, 13, 16, and 17). In doing so, the Tribunal shall adhere to the principles of sound judgment within the applicable legal framework.13 A. Documentary, testimonial, and expert evidence 40. The Court admitted affidavits rendered by the following alleged victims, witnesses, and expert witnesses: a) Raquel Ibsen Castro and Martha Castro Mendoza. Alleged victims. Declarations proposed by the Inter-American Commission and the representatives. Rendered statements regarding the alleged forced disappearance of Messrs. Rainer 9 Cf. Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2004. Series C No. 117, para. 84; Case of the “Las Dos Erres” Massacre v. Guatemala, supra note 7, para. 38; and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra note 6, para. 18. 10 This has occurred, for example, in the cases of Trujillo Oroza and Ticona Estrada et al., both against Bolivia. 11 Cf. Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, para. 66; Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009. Series C No. 196, para. 35; and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico, supra note 8, para. 66. 12 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76, para. 50; Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 6, para. 47; and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra note 6, para. 53. 13 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Sereies C No. 37, para. 76; Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 6, para. 47, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra note 6, para. 53.