3 probative debate, and the statement by Lucrecia Hernández Mack that “the State, that should protect them, killed her” was supported as irrefutable truth. On February 24, 2003, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Guatemala stated, in a brief addressed to the Court, the “true scope of the acceptance of Guatemala’s liability” in the Mack Chang case. In regards to the matter, he stated: “the order I gave (to the State agent), was to simply accept the facts set forth in the application and, in accordance with the general principle stated in Article 52 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, inform to this court of law that Guatemala accepts unconditionally its international liability in the case,” to conclude that “under these special circumstances, I allow myself to request… the real intention of absolute acquiescence by the Government of Guatemala, to be on record in the present communication.” III The gravity of cases like this, where senior government officials charged as abettors, by express orders of physically eliminating a given person on ideological grounds, is not attenuated by internal conflicts, at a given moment, that might affect a country. There are elementary constitutional, or international law or humanitarian international law or ius cogens, rules proscribing, in absolute terms, extrajudicial death. There is not a justification for an arbitrary death, even less when State agents perpetrate it. Almost every country in the world has assumed in its political constitution, and through international treaties, the obligation to respect the right to life and the other fundamental rights of the human person and to create the legal mechanisms and necessary guarantees for complying with said obligation. It is easy to understand the feelings of pain and impotence of a person and his/her next of kin, due to the maximum damage by the State that was supposed to protect them. It is possible to understand the indignation of a daughter who relates her mother’s murder in the hands of senior State officials and who is afraid that the crime will not be punished as a result of abetting, tolerance, or inefficiency of the authorities of the State in charge of administering justice. The State recognized the application facts and, particularly, the facts referred to by Lucrecia María Hernádez Mack, when stating her “real intention of absolute acquiescence.” This acquiescence, stated very late after the evidence hearing, did not have the effect of concluding the process on the merits. However, it can be interpreted, beyond its court effects, as reparation for Myrna Mack Chang’s next of kin for the violation to her right to life and the direct violations of the rights due to hindering and obstruction of a proper administration of justice. Besides its interpretations as a reparation offered by the State, the acquiescence can become highly relevant as a purpose and guarantee that the fact will not be repeated. Even though it is true that this is not the only case in the American continent of a violation of the right to life of a person by senior government officials, or due to several extermination policies, the peculiarity of this process is that it has involved a full acceptance of these facts by the State. It is suitable to repeat that this acceptance can be understood as part of a process of reconciliation and a real establishment of a law and guarantee system characteristic of a democracy. The Court has stated repeatedly that democracy increasingly needs a bigger recognition of human rights, and that the Rule of Law, democracy, and personal liberty are consubstantial, particularly, with the protection regime set forth in the Convention. . “In a democratic society –as stated by the Court- the rights and liberties of the