expressed its willingness to recognize all the facts that occurred and, explicitly granted jurisdiction for the Court to rule on the full scope of the instant case. The Court appreciates the State’s declaration concerning competence for this specific case. Consequently, the Court has full jurisdiction to hear all the facts included in report on merits 177/10, and will therefore decide on the merits and reparations in the instant case. V EVIDENCE 31. Based on the provisions of Articles 46, 49, 50 and 57(1) of the Rules of Procedure, as well as on it case law regarding evidence and its assessment,19 the Court will examine the documentary evidence submitted by the parties on different procedural occasions, the statements provided by affidavit and those received at the public hearing before the Court, as well as the useful evidence requested by the Court. To this end, the Court will abide by the principles of sound judicial discretion, within the corresponding legal framework.20 A) Documentary, testimonial and expert evidence 32. The Court received various documents submitted as evidence by the Inter-American Commission, the representatives, and the State attached to their main briefs (supra paras. 1, 7 and 9). In addition, the Court received affidavits prepared by Juan Bautista Márquez Argueta, Sofía Romero Pereira, Sonia Tobar, Antonia Guevara Díaz, Juan Antonio Pereira Vigil, Eduardo Concepción Argueta Márquez, Saturnino Argueta Claros, José Pablo Díaz Portillo.21 It also received the opinions of the expert witnesses Tal Linda Ileen Simmons and Father David Scott Blanchard, as well as the joint expert opinion of Luis Fondebrider, Silvana Turner and Mercedes C. Doretti. Regarding the evidence provided at the public hearing, the Court received the testimony of the presumed victims Dorila Márquez de Márquez, María del Rosario López Sánchez and María Margarita Chicas Márquez,22 as well as the expert opinions of the expert witnesses Salvador Eduardo Menéndez Leal and María Sol Yáñez De La Cruz. B) Admission of evidence B.1) Admission of documentary evidence 33. In this case, as in others, the Court admits the probative value of those documents presented at the appropriate time by the parties and the Commission that were not contested or opposed, and the authenticity of which was not questioned.23 34. With their pleadings and motions brief, the representatives forwarded documentary evidence in English, without attaching the translation into Spanish. In this regard, on September 27, 2011, they advised that the documents “were presented in English because these are the only versions available and [they] were unaware of the existence of a Spanish version of these documents”; therefore, they requested their admission. Consequently, the Court decided to consider that this evidence had been submitted and forwarded it to the State and the Commission. Since the said documents were not contested or opposed, the Court admits them 19 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of 25 de mayo de 2001. Series C No. 76, para. 51, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, para. 40. 20 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 76, and Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, para. 40. 21 According to the notary’s attestation of April 19, 2012, these statements were provided on April 1 and 2, 2012. Cf. Merits file, tome III, folio 1184. 22 In her passport, she appears as María Margarita Chica de Argueta. Cf. merits file, tome II, folio 1112. 23 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para.140, and Case of Palma Mendoza et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection and merits. Judgment of September 3, 2012. Series C No. 247, para. 23. 13