10 motions of the representatives. In regard to the consequential reparations, the Court will examine and declare, in Chapter XI of the present Judgment, on that which is pertinent. 25. The Inter-American Court assesses the acknowledgment of the State and considers that it constitutes a positive contribution to the development of this process, to the force of the principles which inspire the American Convention, and to the obligatory conduct required of States on this matter, in virtue of the compromises that they assume as Parties to the international instruments on human rights.27 26. Lastly, the Court notes that the dispute between the parties remains with regard to the facts and claims relating to the alleged violations of the rights to personal integrity, judicial guarantees, honor and dignity, equality before the law, and judicial protection, established in Articles 5, 8, 11, 24, and 25 of the American Convention, respectively, in relation to the general obligation to respect and ensure rights established in its Article 1(1); to the obligation to adopt domestic legislative measures established in Article 2 of this international instrument, as well as those obligations arising from Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Convention against Torture, and Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará. Based on the abovementioned, the Court finds it necessary to deliver a Judgment in which it determines the facts and all aspects of the merits of the matter, as well as their possible consequences in regards to reparations. VII EVIDENCE 27. Based on the provisions of Articles 46, 47, 49, and 50 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as in its jurisprudence regarding evidence and its assessment,28 the Court will examine and assess the documentary evidence submitted by the parties on different procedural occasions, as well as the statements, the testimony, and the expert reports provided by affidavit and during the public hearing. To this end, the Court will abide by the principles of sound judicial discretion, within the corresponding normative framework.29 A. Documentary, testimonial, and expert evidence 28. The Court received the statements made before public notary by the following witnesses and expert witnesses:30 1. Obtilia Eugenio Manuel, member of the Organización del Pueblo Indígena Tlapaneco [Organization of Tlapaneco Indigenous Peoples], witness proposed by the Inter-American Commission. She testified about: i) the access to justice of indigenous women victims of violence in the Municipality of Ayutla, and ii) the search for justice of Mrs. Rosendo Cantu. 27 Cf. Case of Trujillo Oroza v. Bolivia. Merits. Judgment of January 26, 2000. Series C No. 64, para. 42; Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”), supra note 21, para. 26, and Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2010. Series C No. 212, para. 38. 28 Cf. The “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76, para. 50; Case of Chitay Nech et al., supra note 25, para. 47, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra note 25, para. 53. 29 Cf. The “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 76; Case of Chitay Nech et al., supra note 25, para. 47, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra note 25, para. 53. 30 Mexico did not offer witnesses nor experts, and as such the President understood that the State tacitly relinquished offering any said evidence. Cf. Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. México. Summons to a Public Hearing, supra note 6, Considering Clause 4.