26 also takes into account the requests both of the Inter-American Commission and of the representatives of the next of kin of the victim, in terms of specifying the scope and the juridical effects of said acquiescence (supra para. 110). 112. The Court deems it appropriate to take into account, based on the authority granted to it by Article 54 of its Rules of Procedure, other elements that allow it to establish the truth of the facts and, therefore, their juridical assessment, exercising its responsibility to protect human rights and applying, to this end, the pertinent provisions of conventional and general international law. 113. In light of the above, the Court takes into account, in addition to and alongside the acquiescence of the State, the testimony and expert opinions rendered at the public hearing before this Court, the body of evidence supplied by the Commission, by the representatives of the victim and by the State, the evidence included by the Court to facilitate adjudication, among others, the Report of the Historical Truth-Finding Committee entitled “Guatemala, memoria del silencio” (CEH), the report of the Archbishop’s Human Rights Office for the recovery of historical memory, entitled “Guatemala: Nunca más: los mecanismos del horror” (REMHI). 114. After examining all these elements, the Court deems that the international responsibility of the State has been established for violations of the American Convention in the instant case, a responsibility that is worsened by the circumstances under which the facts of the cas d’espèce took place. 115. Since the Court deems that said acquiescence does not encompass reparation of the consequences derived from the violations to the rights protected by the Convention that were established in the instant case, the Court –applying Article 63(1) of the American Convention- will establish the pertinent reparations and legal costs. 116. The Court also deems that given the nature of the instant case, issuing a judgment that addresses the merits of the matter constitutes a form of reparation for the victim and her next of kin and, in turn, is a way to avoid recidivism of facts such as those suffered by Myrna Mack Chang and her next of kin. VII THE EVIDENCE 117. Before beginning its examination of the evidence received, the Court will analyze, in light of the provisions of Articles 43 and 44 of the Rules of Procedure, certain considerations that are applicable to the specific case, most of which have been developed in the case law of the Court. 118. The principle of the presence of parties to a dispute applies to evidentiary matters, and it involves respecting the parties’ right to defense. This principle is one of the foundations for Article 43 of the Rules of Procedure, regarding the time when evidence must be offered for there to be equality among the parties.9 9 Cf. Bulacio Case. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 40; Juan Humberto Sánchez Case. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 28; and “Five Pensioners” Case. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 64.