20. There remains no controversy on the need to grant measures of reparation. However, it is for the Court to decide on the specific measures that should be adopted and their scope, taking into account the requests of the Commission and the representative. This includes specific considerations on the propriety of compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, which will be made in the corresponding chapter. B.4 Assessment of the scope of the recognition of responsibility 21. The Court welcomes the State’s recognition of total responsibility, which is a positive contribution to the development of this process, to the validity of the principles that inspire the Convention and to meet the reparatory needs of the victims of human rights violations. Recognition of international responsibility produces full juridical effects in accordance with Articles 62 and 64 of the Rules and has a high symbolic value for the non-repetition of similar acts. 22. Therefore, pursuant to Articles 62 and 64 of the Rules and in exercise of its authority to judicially protect human rights on the international plane and because it is a matter of international public order that transcends the will of the parties, the Court must determine whether an acknowledgement is sufficient to achieve the purposes of the inter-American system. In doing so, the Court is not limited to confirming and taking note of the State’s recognition or to verifying the formal conditions of those actions, but rather it must weigh them against the nature and seriousness of the alleged violations, the demands and interests of justice, the particular circumstances of the specific case and the position of the parties in order to determine, to the extent possible and in the exercise of its competence, the truth of what transpired in the case.9 Thus, the Court deems it necessary to deliver a judgment in which it determines what occurred given the State’s international recognition of responsibility and takes into account the evidence gathered. This will contribute to the reparation of the victims, avoid the repetition of similar acts and, in short, meet the purposes of the inter-American jurisdiction.10 23. The Court will analyze the scope of the State’s international responsibility for violating the rights to life, to personal integrity and to health of Ms. Brítez Arce and for violating the right to personal integrity of Ezequiel Martín Avaro and Vanina Verónica Avaro. In view of the State’s broad recognition of international responsibility and the Court’s consistent case law on the matter, the Court does not consider it necessary to analyze the violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection, established in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) therein, nor the violation of Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará, as of July 5, 1996, to the detriment of Ezequiel Martín Avaro and Vanina Verónica Avaro, children of Cristina Brítez Arce. The Court’s declaration may be found in the Operative Paragraph’s section of the judgment. Lastly, it will rule on the pertinent reparations. V EVIDENCE A. Admissibility of the documentary evidence 24. The Court received, attached to their principal briefs, various documents presented as evidence by the Commission, the representative and the State (supra paras. 1, 6 and 7). As in Cf. Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 17 and Case of Leguizamón Zaván et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 15, 2022. Series C No. 473, para. 26. 9 10 Cf. Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2008. Series C No. 190, para. 26 and Case of Leguizamón Zaván et al. v. Paraguay, supra, para. 26. 8