5 exercise of the “obligation to provide criminal justice” that the State has in accordance with its own legislation and with a guilty verdict from the international court. 17. The Inter-American Court is called upon to establish the truth, a factual and historical truth, which will then be framed in the legal truth that characterizes the inviolable judgment, and to adopt its decisions, based on the legal truth, taking into account the higher interest implied by the defense of human rights. If the Court is empowered to go beyond discontinuance, acquiescence or an agreement on reparations when it deems that this is pertinent for significant reasons, it can do so with all the more reason when the meaning and scope of a party’s statements are not sufficiently clear and when, consequently, the other parties request the jurisdictional organ to provide clarifications or explanations that allow the situation created by these statements to be defined. When undertaking this logical exercise in the performance of its jurisdictional attributes, the Court can assess dubious or insufficient statements, in its own terms, or relate them to other information provided to the proceeding, so as to combine everything in order to establish a sound basis for the adoption of its decisions. III. ADMISSION, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND EVIDENCE OF THE FACTS 18. The State has made various statements, which it classifies as acknowledgement of international or institutional responsibility, international acknowledgement of institutional responsibility, “absolute acquiescence,” “plain [acknowledgement of] the facts set out in the application,” “acquiescence [...] to the claims of the petitioner,” “acknowledgment of the facts set forth in the application and unconditional acknowledgement [by the State of] its international responsibility (cf. Chap. VI of the judgment). I repeat that the State’s attitude is admirable when, by drawing attention to the existence of facts that violate human rights it attempts to bring them into the open – or it admits, to a greater or lesser degree, the pertinent reports of other international instances, such as the Inter-American Commission or entities of civil society, such as non-governmental organization – and accepts the adverse juridical consequences resulting from them, and states this position before international justice. In the Inter-American Court’s experience, there has been an increase in cases of acquiescence or acknowledgement of responsibility, which is an encouraging precedent. 19. Since, the application sometimes alludes to the acknowledgement of the facts, it is worth clarifying that this document of June 19, 2001, considers facts of two main types: those relating to the deprivation of the life of Myrna Mack Chang and those relating to the investigation of this fact and the punishment of those responsible. Regarding the former, it alludes expressly to a plan of the intelligence service; and, regarding the latter, it mentions the lack of a genuine and effective investigation within a reasonable lapse of time and de facto and de jure mechanisms that prevent adequate administration of justice (para. 209 of the application brief of the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights). These – as they appear reported in the application – would be the facts that the State acknowledges when it refers clearly to this procedural act. 20. Despite the emphatic statements of the State in several acts of the international proceeding, particularly those made or provided after the public hearing of February 19, 2003, had been held, the other parties to the proceeding expressed some reservations or doubts and asked the Court to establish their scope. This