16 43. In relation to the State’s argument that the Court had formed an opinion prematurely because it had requested helpful evidence (supra 34.d, this Court considers that this point was opportunely clarified by note Ref. CDH-11,073/131, in which the President of the Court responded to the State that: The request for information as helpful evidence is one of the attributes of the Court, in accordance with Article 44 of its Rules of Procedure, and its purpose is to ensure that the Court has all the probative evidence necessary so that it may rule in one judgment on preliminary objections, merits and reparations, by virtue of the principle of procedural economy (Articles 36(6) and 56(1) of the Rules of Procedure). This principle was supported by the Court when assessing the evidence in this case,26 in keeping with the Court’s general practice in this matter.27 44. With regard to some of the documents relating to the State’s responsibility for the extrajudicial execution of Juan Humberto Sánchez,28 to which the State referred in its brief with the request for interpretation, it should be pointed out that they were presented during the public hearing and not when answering the application, which means that some of these documents were extemporaneous, according to the established procedural rules.29 Moreover, regarding the State’s allegation that its arguments on torture and the responsibility of those who assassinated Juan Humberto Sánchez were not taken into consideration, this Court has indicated repeatedly that, as a judicial organ for the protection of human rights, in the proceedings that it hears, the parties do not appear as “defendants in a criminal action, because the Court does not punish those individuals who are guilty of violating human rights [... but, to the contrary, its] function [...] is to protect the victims and to provide for the reparation of damages resulting from the acts of the It is for the State, through its domestic judicial organs, to responsible States.”30 determine the identity of the intellectual authors and the perpetrators of the offenses or crimes, and for the Court to establish whether public authorities have participated Judgment of January 22, 1999. Series C No. 48, para. 16; Suárez Rosero case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of January 20, 1999. Series C No. 44, para. 33; Durand and Ugarte case. Preliminary objections. Judgment of May 28, 1999. Series C No. 50, paras. 21, 25, 27; and Castillo Páez case, Reparations, supra note 13, para. 19. 26 Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 10, paras. 25, 27 to 31 and 45 to 56. 27 Cf., Bulacio case, supra note 13, para. 41; Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 10, para. 29; Las Palmeras case, Reparations, supra note 13, para. 17; El Caracazo case, Reparations, supra note 13, para. 37; Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. case, supra note 20, para. 64; Trujillo Oroza case, Reparations, supra note 20, para. 36; Bámaca Velásquez case. Reparations, supra note 15, para. 14; Cantoral Benavides case, Reparations, supra note 15, para. 21; Cantoral Benavides case, Reparations, supra note 15, para. 21; Cesti Hurtado case, Reparations, supra note 15, para. 20; the “Street Children” case (Villagrán Morales et al.), Reparations, supra note 13, para. 39; the White Van” case (Paniagua Morales et al.), Reparations, supra note 15, para. 50; and Castillo Páez case. Reparations, supra note 13, para. 37. 28 Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 10, paras. 37, 39, 45, 46 and 56. 29 Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 10, paras. 23, 37 and 46. 30 The “Street Children” case (Villagrán Morales et al.). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 75; and the “White Van” case (Paniagua Morales et al.), supra note 15, para. 91; similarly, Suárez Rosero case. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 37; Godínez Cruz case. Judgment of January 20, 1989. Series C No. 5, para. 140; and Velásquez Rodríguez case, Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 134.