12 c) There was abundant evidence, during both the written and oral stages, which proved that the document entitled “Informe Secreto” was not valid and that, if had been genuine, “it was the only evidence on which the petition submitted to the Commission could have been based.” Likewise, the Court “did not agree to issue an order for helpful evidence, requesting information or verifying by scientific means the authenticity of the ‘document’ that the State alleges is false, so that there would be no doubt about its authenticity; the Court should have been more thorough in order to establish that the armed men who captured Sánchez were not Honduran soldiers, but guerrillas of the Frente Morazanista de Liberación Nacional de El Salvador (sic), who assumed that Sánchez had deserted their ranks.” The judgment, “in a way that is not clear or precise or congruent with the established facts,” on the one hand indicates that this document does not form part of the body of evidence of the case; but, on the other hand, “unjustly condemns the State to pay an exorbitant sum of money and to assume another series of responsibilities.” Consequently, the judgment should be revised, “in order to establish whether the document ‘is true or false’, using the technical and scientific methods available to the Court”; and d) Lastly, the facts that the judgment considers proven are based “on a mere appreciation or presumption,” because the judgment considers the existence of a pattern of forced disappearances and executions in the 1980s in the State in the abstract and, “based only on this subjective assessment condemns the State unjustly for the crime against Sánchez, without having taken into consideration all the probative elements established by the State.” The judgment bases its conclusions on the Velásquez Rodríguez and Godínez Cruz cases and grants the book “Los hechos hablan por sí mismos” [The facts speak for themselves] the status of conclusive evidence; but this “is not scientific.” In other words, the Court did not take into account that “the captors of Sánchez were not members of the National Army, but [...] leftist guerrillas [Frente Farabundo Martí para la Liberación Nacional (hereinafter “FMLN”) …]; and the arguments of the State were not taken into consideration, because the Court was always evidently prejudiced against the State. The Secretary of the Court was duly informed of this when the State answered a request made by the Secretariat that it forward some information on the life expectancy of a Honduran and the minimum wage in the 1990s.” Arguments of the Commission 35. With regard to these allegations, the Commission made the following observations: a) The State had the procedural opportunity to offer arguments concerning the facts that the Court considered proven and, indeed, it did offer them and, “what it is now trying to do, is submit to the Court issues on which [the] Court has already delivered judgment”; consequently, “the State is not asking the Court to clarify its doubts concerning the meaning and scope of the ruling – the only purpose of a request for interpretation – but expects [the] Court to review the