17 B.2 Admission of the testimonial and expert evidence 43. The Court finds it pertinent to admit the statements and expert opinions provided by the alleged victims and the expert witnesses, both during the public hearing and in sworn statements (affidavits), insofar as these are useful to the purpose specified by the President in the order that admitted them (supra para. 10) and the object of this case. Following the public hearing, the expert witness Martha de la Concepción Cabrera Cruz forwarded a document containing her expert opinion on “Transgenerational after-effects of forced disappearance,” which is included in the body of evidence. 44. In his order of March 3, 2014 (supra para. 10), the President of the Court did not admit the representatives’ request to substitute the expert statement of Pilar Ibáñez Mosqueda with that of the expert witness Baltasar Garzón Real, and therefore ordered that the evidence initially offered be received. However, the expert opinion of Pilar Ibáñez Mosqueda was not received within the time limit granted. On April 1, 2014, Mr. Baltasar Garzón Real forwarded a document ratified by a notary public, containing “the answer to the questions forwarded by the […] State of El Salvador to Pilar Ibañez Mosqueda in relation to the ‘study on the established chain of command followed within the armed forces of El Salvador during the years in which the [alleged] forced disappearances occurred in the instant case.” At the request of the President, the representatives provided clarification regarding the aforementioned document and agreed to withdraw the expert opinion. For its part, the State noted that said expert opinion was not rendered by the proposed expert witness, and therefore asked that “it not be admitted.” The Court decides to accept the representatives’ decision to withdraw the expert opinion and, therefore, the said report will not be taken into account as part of the body of evidence of this case. VI FACTS 45. Given the importance of establishing the facts in this case that resulted in the State’s responsibility, as well as the context in which they took place, so as to preserve the historical memory, avoid the repetition of similar acts and as a form of reparation for the victims,36 in this section the Court will ascertain the facts of the case and the international responsibility arising from them, based on the factual framework presented in the Inter-American Commission’s merits report and the State’s acknowledgement of responsibility, and taking into consideration the representatives’ pleadings and motions brief, the precedents of the Court and the body of evidence. To this effect, the Court recalls that the State declared its full acceptance of the facts (supra paras. 26 and 35). A. Context 46. In the judgment issued in the Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, the Court established the context in which the facts of the instant case took place, based principally on the Report of the Truth Commission for El Salvador.37 A description of this context was included by the Inter-American Commission in its merits report on this case. For its part, the State acknowledged the aforementioned context (supra para. 19). Cf. Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, para. 53, and Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 47. 36 Cf. Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2011. Series C No. 232, paras. 40 to 55, citing the Report of the Truth Commission for El Salvador, From Madness to Hope: The 12-Year War in El Salvador, 1992-1993. 37