of complying with some of the recommendations are incompatible with this acquiescence.12 Furthermore, the argument regarding the impossibility of complying with the recommendation to reinstate the presumed victims is closely related to what must be decided at the stage of reparations in the instant case. Consequently, the objections filed have no purpose and it is not necessary to analyze them, 13 in view of the terms of the acknowledgement of responsibility in this case. VI EVIDENCE 28. Based on the provisions of Articles 46, 50, 57 and 58 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as on its case law concerning evidence and its assessment, 14 the Court will examine and assess the documentary probative elements forwarded by the parties on different procedural occasion, the statements of the presumed victims and witnesses, the expert opinions provided by affidavit and during the public hearing before the Court, and also the helpful evidence requested by the Court. To this end, the Court will abide by the principles of sound judicial discretion within the corresponding legal framework. 15 A. Documentary, testimonial, and expert evidence 29. The Court received various documents presented as evidence by the Inter-American Commission, the representatives, and the State, attached to their main briefs. The Court also received the affidavits of: A) Presumed victims proposed by the representatives 1) Enrique Herrería Bonnet, Miguel Camba Campos,16 Manuel Jaramillo Córdova, Jaime Manuel Nogales Izureta, Luis Rojas Bajaña, Mauro Terán Cevallos and Simón Zabala Guzmán, who testified on: (i) the presumed facts of the case, in particular the alleged way in which they were prosecuted and the manner in which they have experienced their dismissal; (ii) the alleged personal effects they suffered and continue to suffer owing to the presumed violation of their human rights, and (iii) how they would possibly feel should they receive redress if the Court declared the violation of their rights. B) Witness proposed by the representatives 12 Similarly, regarding preliminary objections for failure to exhaust domestic remedies, Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Preliminary objections. Judgment of March 7, 2005. Series C No. 122, para. 30, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and reparations. Judgment of June 27, 2012. Series C No. 245, para. 30. 13 Similarly, Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, para. 30. 14 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, paras. 69 al 76, and Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 21, 2013. Series C No. 261, para. 30. 15 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, para. 76, and Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador, para. 30. 16 The President of the Court called on this presumed victim to be heard by means of an affidavit in the order of February 15, 2013. However, the representatives of the victims did not forward the affidavit prepared by Miguel Camba Campos (merits file, tome IV, folio 1445). 11