14 * * * 54. Keeping in mind its attributes as an institution responsible for the supervision of the most complete protection of human rights, as well as the context in which the facts of the present case occurred, the Tribunal deems it necessary to issue a Judgment in which the facts and every element of the merits of the case, and the corresponding consequences are determined. This Judgment will constitute a form of redress for the victims’ next of kin, a contribution to preservation of historical memory, a method for avoiding that similar events be repeated, and a means of satisfying, in sum, the objectives of the Inter-American System for Human Rights.19 Therefore, without prejudice to the scope of the acknowledgment of responsibility made by the State, the Court deems it appropriate to assess the facts of the present case, both those acknowledged by Colombia as well as the others included in the application. Moreover, the Court deems it necessary to make some findings regarding the manner in which the violations occurred, within the context and circumstances of the case, as well as the determination of the scope of some of the obligations established in the American Convention. This analysis will be undertaken in the corresponding sections. In these sections the Court will also analyze the facts, the merits, and the reparations of the remaining controversy over the extent of the State’s international responsibility. V EVIDENCE 55. As established in Articles 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure and the Tribunal’s jurisprudence with regard to evidence and its assessment,20 the Court will proceed to examine and assess the documentary elements of evidence presented by the Commission, the representatives, and the State at several procedural stages. It will also examine and assess the documentary evidence submitted as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case requested by the President and the Court, as well as the testimonial statements and expert opinions offered through affidavit, written sworn statements, or in public hearing before the Court. To this end, the Tribunal will follow the principles of reasoned judgment, within the corresponding legal framework.21 A) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, TESTIMONIES, AND EXPERT OPINIONS 56. With regard to the documentary evidence, the following witnesses proposed by the representatives presented written statements before a notary public on the extrajudicial killings of their next of kin, the search for justice and the alleged impunity in the case, their 19 Cf. Case of La Cantuta, supra note 8, para. 57; Case of Vargas Areco, supra note 8, para. 66; Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 11, para. 53, and Case of Servellón García et al. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, para. 78. 20 Cf. Case of La Cantuta, supra note 8, para. 59; Case of Nogueira de Carvalho et al. Judgment of November 28, 2006. Series C No. 161, para. 55; Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.), supra note 16, para. 80; and Case of Almonacid Arellano e al., supra note 16, para. 66 to 69. 21 Cf. Case of La Cantuta, supra note 8, para. 59; Case of Nogueira de Carvalho et al., supra note 20, para. 62; Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.), supra note 16, para. 80; and Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 11, para. 55.