15 72. In the application, the Inter-American Commission made the following statements: [o]n March 3, 2000, the State of Guatemala acknowledged institutional responsibility in the instant case [for] the murder of Myrna Mack Chang, delay and denial of justice [,which] has full juridical value in accordance with the principles of international law […] It was the understanding of the Commission, interpreting the acknowledgment of responsibility by the Guatemalan State in good faith, that it necessarily entailed acceptance of the central facts alleged by the applicants. Thus, in light of what the State had expressed in its acknowledgment of responsibility and of what is stated in the [...] evidentiary material included in its file, the Commission pointed out that the acknowledgment of responsibility meant, with respect to the right to life, that: 1) It was the high command of the Presidential General Staff at the time of the facts who issued explicit instructions to Noel de Jesús Beteta Álvarez to murder Myrna Mack Chang due to the professional activities of the victim; 2) Members of the high command of the Presidential General Staff at the time of the facts together with other officials of that institution developed a prior plan to murder Myrna Mack; 3) Members of the high command of the Presidential General Staff at the time of the facts, taking advantage of their positions at the time or subsequently through their “subterraneous” influences, have obstructed efficient administration of justice in this case. With respect to the acknowledgment of responsibility by the Guatemalan State regarding violation of the rights to fair trial and to judicial protection, the Commission, through an interpretation in good faith and in light of what is stated [in the] existing evidentiary material, pointed out that the acknowledgment of responsibility by the Guatemalan State entailed: 1) that there has been an obstruction of justice by agents of the Guatemalan State, especially by members of the army, to foster impunity regarding the accessories of the murder of Myrna Mack; 2) that there have been threats and acts of intimidation by agents of the State against witnesses, judges, prosecutors and other legal operators with the aim of fostering impunity in this case; 3) that there has been negligence and unwillingness of the judicial authorities in the processing of the judicial proceeding to try and to punish all those responsible for the murder of Myrna Mack, especially with regard to punishing the members of the high command of the Presidential General Staff at the time of the facts, as it was they who deliberately planned and ordered the execution of Myrna Mack […] In light of the information provided by the Guatemalan State on May 29, 2001, the State seeks to go against the scope of the acknowledgment of responsibility made by the State itself on March 3, 200[0] and the interpretation made by all the parties to the case and the Commission in good faith. The [Commission] notes that the conclusions it reached in Confidential Report No 39/01 and which it reaffirms in the instant application did not derive only from the acknowledgment of responsibility by the Guatemalan State, but rather that the Commission reached those conclusions after an exhaustive investigation of the various items of evidence supplied by the parties […] Nevertheless, the State complied neither with its international obligations derived from its acknowledgment of responsibility nor with the recommendations made by the Commission in its Report No. 39/01. 73. In its reply to the application of September 26, 2001, the State reiterated several of the arguments made in its last brief before the Commission; it asked that the application be deemed answered “negatively regarding the non-disputed parts of [said] brief and those on which it did not state an explicit acknowledgment.” Furthermore, it requested that based on the preliminary objections raised, the Court rule the application filed by the Commission inadmissible (supra para. 25). 74. In its brief with observations on the preliminary objections, the Commission argued that in its application it interpreted in good faith the acknowledgment of responsibility by the State and it understood that the scope of the latter necessarily involved acceptance of the “central facts” alleged by the applicants. In addition, that both in its May 29, 2001 brief and in its brief on preliminary objections, the State once again disavowed its explicit acknowledgment of responsibility and raised an objection regarding the competence of the Court, thus contradicting its previous