Action Plan 2009-2013, the representatives indicated that “this is not helpful evidence, because it is not the domestic laws requested by the Court, but rather the State’s assessment of those laws. Moreover, it is not supervening evidence that is presented for the first time as an attachment to the State’s final arguments. Consequently, [they asked] the Court not to incorporate this attachment into the body of evidence in this specific case.” 37. Regarding the Baseline Reports provided by the State, the Court considers that these documents are unrelated to the facts analyzed in this case and, therefore, they will not be admitted. Furthermore, regarding the Consolidated Report presented to the Committee on the Rights of the Child in July 2012, and the Country Programme Action Plan 2009-2013, the Court admits it as information that may be helpful to decide this case. B.1.2 The helpful evidence requested 38. In communications of February 11 and May 20, 2014, the State was asked to provide documentation as useful evidence pursuant to Article 58(b) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure; however, the State only complied partially with the request. 43 Accordingly, the Court will take the pertinent elements of the documentation provided into consideration. In this regard, the Court recalls that the parties must provide all the evidentiary material requested – ex officio as helpful evidence, or at the request of a party – so that the Court has the greatest number of probative elements in order to examine the facts and to reason its decisions. 44 B.2 Admission of the testimonial and expert evidence 39. Regarding the testimony provided during the public hearing and by affidavit, the Court finds it pertinent only insofar as it accords with the purpose defined by the President of the Court in the order requiring it (supra para. 10). Also, pursuant to the Court’s case law, the statements of the presumed victims cannot be assessed in isolation, but rather within the whole body of evidence in the proceedings, because they are useful to the extent that they can provide additional information on the presumed violations and their consequences. 45 B.2.1 The State’s objections to statements by the presumed victims offered by the representatives 40. In a brief of December 17, 2013, the State raised various objections to the offer by the representatives of the statements of Ignacio Landaeta, María Magdalena Mejías, Victoria Landaeta, Leydis Landaeta and Francy Parra. 41. In an Order of the President of the Court of December 26, 2013 (supra para. 10), it was decided to receive the statements of the presumed victims offered by the representatives, so that the Court could assess their significance in the context of the existing body of evidence and in accordance with the rules of sound judicial discretion. 43 In this regard, the State did not forward general and detailed photographs No. 1581 and No. 1582 taken during the site inspection in the case of Igmar Landaeta. Regarding the photographs requested to substantiate autopsies No. 872-96 and No. 1018-96, corresponding to Igmar Landaeta and Eduardo Landaeta, respectively, the State indicated that, when these autopsies were performed, photographs were not taken to corroborate their results (merits file, folios 1249 and 1279). 44 Cf. Case of Durand and Ugarte v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series C No. 68, para. 51, and Case of Yvon Neptune v. Haiti. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 180, para. 23. 45 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 43, and Case of Norín Catrimán et al. (Leaders, members and activist of the Mapuche Indigenous People), supra, para. 70. 13