8 Pleadings of the Commission 39. At the first public hearing and in its brief filed on April 23, 2004, the InterAmerican Commission expressed its positive appreciation of the statement made by Guatemala in the instant case and accepted the withdrawal of the preliminary objections filed by the State. The Commission also pointed out that in the statement by Guatemala, the State acknowledges its international responsibility for violation of the rights cited in the prayers for relief in the application by the [Commission and] in the brief with pleadings by the petitioners, that is, the abridgment of the rights to humane treatment, to judicial protection, to fair trail, to equal protection, to freedom of conscience and of religion, all of them in combination with the obligation to respect rights. Furthermore, the right to privacy and to freedom of expression and of association. In this regard, […] the [Commission] note[d] that the concept of international responsibility of the State was specified regarding the violations committed by its agents, with respect to the August 9, 2000 statement by Guatemala. The Commission also noted that in its statement Guatemala acknowledged the facts that were the object of the application and of the brief with pleadings, motions, and evidence by the representatives of the victims and their next of kin. The Commission reached the conclusion that, “as the Historical Elucidation Commission also concluded, the facts took place within the framework of a genocidal policy directed against the Mayan people.” Therefore, it asked the Court to consider the facts proven and to include them in the judgment it will issue in the instant case. 40. The Commission also accepted the acknowledgment of international responsibility made by the State and asked the Court to rule on its legal effects, pursuant to Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure. Finally, the Commission declined the State’s proposal of a friendly settlement and asked the Court to move on to the reparations stage. Pleadings of the representatives of the victims and their next of kin 41. During the first public hearing and in their April 23, 2004 brief, the representatives of the victims and their next of kin also referred to the acknowledgment of international responsibility made by the State. In this regard, they expressed that they “appreciate[d] the acknowledgment of international responsibility” made by Guatemala. The representatives pointed out that the acknowledgment made involved acceptance of the merits regarding the facts alleged by the Commission in its application and the pleadings set forth in the brief with pleadings, motions, and evidence submitted on September 27, 2002. They also noted that, through this acknowledgment, “the State accept[s] the impunity that still prevails regarding the Plan de Sánchez [Massacre], which took place in the framework of a genocidal policy,” and they did not accept the State’s proposal of a friendly settlement to establish reparations. They also asked the Court to hear the witnesses and expert witnesses who were summoned, because this constitutes a form of reparation and of full restitution to the community as a whole. Therefore, the representatives asked the Court to begin the reparations phase. * * *