9 Commission’s application. Nevertheless, the State indicated that it would not dispute the facts alleged “by the Inter-American Commission and the petitioners,” without making a distinction between them (supra para. 25), so that it did not exercise its right to defense in this regard. Consequently, in light of the State’s acknowledgement, the Court will assess the 30. facts established in the application and the facts presented by the representatives only to the extent that they help clarify or contextualize the facts described by the Commission,16 together with the evidence submitted by the parties and, on this basis, it will make the corresponding decisions in light of the applicable international standards. The facts described by the representative that exceed the factual framework outlined in the application will not be assessed. VI EVIDENCE 31. Based on the provisions of Articles 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure, and also on the Court’s case law regarding evidence and its assessment, the Court will examine and assess the documentary probative elements forwarded by the Commission, the representatives and the State at different procedural opportunities or as helpful evidence requested by the President, as well as the testimony rendered by affidavit and received at the public hearing. To this end, the Court will abide by the principles of sound judicial discretion, within the corresponding normative framework.17 A) Documentary, testimonial and expert evidence 32. By order of the President of the Court, statements made before notary public (affidavits) were received from the following persons: (a) José Enrique Villasante, witness proposed by the representatives, who testified about the sufferings of the alleged victim and his family as a result of the threats and attacks they allegedly experienced, and about apparent libel regarding the alleged victim that appeared in the social communication media;18 agents who had perpetrated acts of torture against him Cf. case No. 55,346/2005 before Criminal Court of First Instance No. 13 headed by Judge Luis Alberto Zelaya (pleadings and motions brief, merits file, tome I, folio 198), and (4) the suspension of Mr. Bayarri’s pension as a retired police officer. Cf. administrative proceeding filed before the Argentine Federal Police ((pleadings and motions brief, merits file, tome I, folio 198). See also the report of the Ministry of Justice, Security and Human Rights of June 18, 2008, submitted by the State (file of attachments to the brief with final arguments of the State, sole tome, folios 6849 to 6850). 16 In its case law, the Court has reiterated that the application constitutes the factual framework of the proceedings and that, consequently, the representatives are not allowed to present different facts from those set forth in the application, “although they may present those that allow the facts mentioned in the application to be explained, clarified or refuted.” Cf. "Five Pensioners" v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 153; case of Yvon Neptune, supra note 14, para. 157; and case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 10, para. 228. In this regard, the Court has established that the alleged victim may invoke different rights from those included in the Commission’s application, based on the facts submitted by the Commission. Cf. Case of the "Five Pensioners" v. Peru, supra, para. 153; Case of the Saramaka People, supra note 13, para. 27; and case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 10, para. 228. 17 Cf. Paniagua Morales et al. v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, paras. 50 and 76; case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Administrative Court”), supra nota 9, para. 11; and case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra nota 10, para. 64. 18 Cf. testimony rendered before notary public (affidavit) by José Enrique Villasante on April 3, 2008 (merits file, tome V, folios 927 to 929).