9 Executive maintained in recent years during the processing of individual petitions before the bodies of the Inter-American system for the protection of Human Rights, characterized by the Government’s intention to tend to the needs of reparation of the victims of violations of human rights and their next of kin. This has been evidenced in different cases this Tribunal has heard against Guatemala,14 in which the State has acknowledged its international responsibility with regard to the violations to human rights occurred in its jurisdiction and it has promoted actions to comply with the reparations pursuant with that ordered by the Tribunal. 23. Taking the aforementioned into account, the Court considers that the controversy regarding the forced disappearance of Maria and Josefa Tiu Tojín and the violations of the rights enshrined in the following Articles: 4 (Right to Life), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same and Article I of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance, in detriment of María Tiu Tojín; Articles 4 (Right to Life), 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 7 (Right to Personal Liberty), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), 19 (Rights of the Child), and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in detriment of the child Josefa Tiu Tojín, in relation to Article 1(1) of the same and Article I of the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance; Articles 5 (Right to Humane Treatment), 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), and 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of that instrument, in detriment of Victoriana Tiu Tojín, and Articles 8 (Right to a Fair Trial) and 25 (Rights to Judicial Protection) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention, in detriment of the following next of kin of María and Josefa Tiu Tojín: Josefa Tojín Imul, mother of María Tiu Tojín, Rosa Tiu Tojín, Pedro Tiu Tojín, Manuel Tiu Tojín, and Juana Tiu Tojín, all siblings of María Tiu Tojín. * * * 24. In the terms of Articles 53(2) and 55 of the Rules of Procedure, in exercise of the powers of international protection of human rights inherent to the Tribunal’s jurisdictional powers, the Court may determine if an acknowledgment of international responsibility, made by a respondent State, offer sufficient grounds, pursuant with the American Convention to continue or not with the hearing of the merits and the determination of the possible reparations and costs. For these effects the Tribunal analyzes the situation presented in each specific case.15 25. In the case sub judice, the Commission asked the Tribunal that it issue a judgment on merits in this case stating as established the facts “due to the importance the determination of an official truth of what occurred has for the victims of violations of human rights and in this case for Guatemalan society as a whole.” The representatives reiterated said request and indicated that the judgments of this Cfr. Among other cases: Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala, Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala, Case of Maritza Urrutia v. Guatemala, Plan de Sánchez Massacre v. Guatemala, Case of Molina Theissen v. Guatemala, and Case of Carpio Nicolle et al. v. Guatemala. 14 15 Cfr. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para.105; Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. v. Ecuador, supra note 13, para. 12; and Case of Albán Cornejo et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2007. Series C No. 171, para. 14.