20 On February 18, when they appeared before the Court, the Agents of the State of Guatemala ratified the acknowledgment of institutional responsibility for violation of the right to life of Myrna Mack Chang and for violation of the right of access to justice of the next of kin of the victim. Despite said acknowledgment, which the State deemed sufficient for the respective judgment to be issued, the Honorable Court decided to continue the case hearing by receiving testimony regarding facts that are no longer disputed, in view of the acceptance of responsibility by the respondent State. In face of this situation, deeming that they had fulfilled their role and their legal and historical responsibility before the Inter-American system for the protection of human rights, the Agents of the State of Guatemala decided, having received the consent of the [...] Court, to withdraw from the evidence-gathering stage to return at the appropriate time in the [...] hearing to present their final position regarding this case. The State of Guatemala regrets that the good faith of its acknowledgment of the human rights violations by agents who compromised its institutional responsibility has not been fully appreciated and that, instead, it has been subjected to repetitive statements regarding facts that have already been accepted and others that are still being heard under domestic legal jurisdiction in Guatemala. 88. Having heard the testimony and expert opinions at said public hearing, on February 20, 2003 the State expressed in its final oral pleadings: [w]e refrained from examining any of [the witnesses and expert witnesses] because we deem that after the acknowledgment of the State, reiterating its responsibility in the instant case, there is no dispute on the facts and points to which their statements referred. It is important to underline that the points on which testimony was rendered coincide with the acknowledgment by the State, for which reason, since they are not disputed facts, all we can do is await a judgment on the merits and a judgment on reparations, that this Honorable Court will issue. 89. In addition, with respect to a question asked by Judge Salgado Pesantes, on “whether there truly is an acquiescence by the State pursuant to the aforementioned Article 52 of the Rules of Procedure,” the State replied: your honor, in accordance with juridical doctrine and the international rulings issued, no. Acquiescence is not in order when there is no explicit authorization by a State for its Agents. That authorization does not exist. 90. that: At the end of said hearing, the Inter-American Commission, in turn, stated the State of Guatemala withdrew its preliminary objection regarding non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. Therefore, the issue of whether there are currently ongoing domestic proceedings in Guatemala is not being discussed, today, in the proceeding. Second, we wish to point out that we are going to include in the procedure official communiqué 032-2003, entitled “el Estado de Guatemala contribuye a la justicia en el caso de Mack Chang aceptando la responsabilidad institucional en la Corte Interamericana,” where Article 52 of the Rules of Procedure is invoked, stating that it is an “acquiescence.” [S]uch a statement, if it is not denied, if it was not of course falsified, has a juridical value. It is an official statement that is expressly communicated within Guatemala. That is also why these proceedings are important and why we have insisted on the value of the official truth being told. Because if we are told that there is a simple, pure, unconditional acknowledgment, then partial acknowledgment, then acquiescence, and this is communicated, it appears as if the applicants for the victims have adopted a recalcitrant position. Yesterday we heard that it was not an acquiescence and not even absolute acknowledgment, and even now this statement invokes Article 52.