23 regard, it has pointed out that, depending on the object, procedure, structure and purpose of their mandate, such commissions can contribute to the construction and preservation of the historical memory, the clarification of the facts and the determination of institutional, social and political responsibilities in certain historical periods of a society. 48 74. The Report of the Historical Clarification Commission (CEH) is an important reference in the documentation of the internal armed conflict and has been used repeatedly by this Court as evidence in at least ten cases involving Guatemala, from 2000 to 2015, with no objection from the State. 49 It is only in this case that Guatemala presented an objection for the first time. On this point, the Court notes that even the Historical Clarification Commission itself, when setting up its operation, made the following two points regarding the use of its Report. First, it understood “that the non-individualization of responsibilities for human rights violations or acts of violence which it was called upon to clarify is a characteristic that derives from its own purpose, which is not of a criminal procedural nature but rather of historical clarification.” Second, that “in and of themselves, [its] recommendations and reports have no legal character or purpose, since the CEH is not a judicial body.” In this sense, “[w]hile the Agreement states that neither its work nor the Report has judicial effects, there is nothing to prevent the institutions of the State, particularly the entities of the justice administration system, from relying on elements contained in the CEH Report.” 50 In view of the foregoing, the Court will evaluate the CEH Report together with the rest of the evidence, according to the rules of sound judgment and based on experience, without being subject to the rules of weighted evidence. VIII FACTS 75. The Court will now refer to: A) the background to the case; B) the events that took place in Chichupac village and neighboring communities, and C) the facts relating to the investigations opened. In this regard, the Court accepts those facts that were not expressly denied by the State, provided that the contrary has not appeared in the case file (supra paras. 54 to 58, and 71 to 74), and if so, has presented the facts in a manner consistent with the evidence provided by the Commission, the representatives and the State, making the corresponding citation. Likewise, it has cited evidence that serves to clarify or specify the statements of the parties and the Commission. 51 Also, where relevant, it has cited the cases in which this Court has previously referred to the political and historical context contemporary to the facts. It should be noted that the events that occurred prior to the date of Guatemala's recognition of the Court's jurisdiction, that is, March 9, 1987, serve only as background to contextualize the facts and the alleged human rights violations that are within its temporal jurisdiction. The determination of the State's possible international responsibility for the alleged human rights violations will be determined in Chapter IX of the judgment. and Report of the National Commission on Political Imprisonment and Torture, all of Chile; and, Report of the Colombian Truth Commission on the events at the Palace of Justice. 48 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, paras. 131 and 134, and Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (Disappeared of the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia) v. Colombia, para. 88. 49 Cf. Cases of: Bámaca Velásquez, Myrna Mack Chang, Maritza Urrutia, Plan de Sánchez Massacre, Tiu Tojín, Dos Erres Massacre, Chitay Nech et al., Río Negro Massacres, Gudiel Álvarez et al., García and Family Members, Veliz Franco et al., Human Rights Defender et al., and Velásquez Paiz et al. 50 Cf. CEH Report “Guatemala, Memory of Silence,” June 1999, Mandate and working procedure, para. 68. 51 The following evidentiary elements have been used in this Chapter: a) CEH Report “Guatemala, Memory of Silence”, prepared in 1999, United Nations Office for Project Services /UNOPS.; b) Report of the Inter-Diocesan Project for the Recovery of Historical Memory -REMHI Report- “Guatemala: Nunca Más”, prepared in 1998 by the Human Rights Office of the Archbishopric of Guatemala (ODHAG). Available at: http://www.fundacionpdh.org/lesahumanidad/informes/guatemala/informe REMHI-Tomo1.htm; c) Report of the Human Rights Ombudsman of Guatemala of September 2, 1996 (evidence file, folio 1869); d) some parts of the criminal files related to complaints submitted regarding the facts of this case, and e) testimonies of some of the survivors in this case.