49. The documents submitted by the State on October 30, 2001 (supra paras. 26 and 43), and those forwarded by CEJIL on November 28, 2001, regarding the questions that the Court had asked the State during the public hearing on reparations (supra paras. 32 and 45), are incorporated into the body of evidence in the instant case in application of the provisions of Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure, since they were requested as additional (supra paras. 20 and 21). 50. The Court also considers that the documents provided by the State on March 16, 2001 (supra paras. 15 and 41) and on November 27, 2001 (supra paras. 31 and 44) are useful, as well as the documents submitted by CEJIL on October 29, 2001 (supra paras. 25 and 42), and on November 28, 2001 (supra paras. 32 and 45), particularly taking into account that these documents were forwarded to the parties and they did not challenge them, object to them or raise any doubts about their authenticity or truth. Consequently, it incorporates them into the body of evidence in the instant case. 51. The State did not present the documentation requested by the Secretariat on November 9, 2001 (supra para. 27), as additional evidence. In this respect, the Court observes that the parties should provide the Court with the evidence it requests, whether this is of a documentary or testimonial nature, expert reports or any other type. * * * ASSESSMENT OF TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE 52. With regard to the testimony given by Antonia Gladys Oroza de Solón Romero, the Court attaches importance to it, since it is consistent with the purpose of the line of questioning proposed by her legal representatives and by the Commission. It is also important to indicate that the State did not ask Mrs. Oroza de Solón Romero any questions. This Court considers that, since this is the statement of the victim’s mother and as she has a direct interest in the case, her testimony cannot be evaluated separately, but as part of all the evidence in the proceeding. It is also important to indicate that, in the case of reparations, the testimonies of the next of kin of the victims are useful, since they can provide greater information about the consequences of the violations perpetrated14. V PROVEN FACTS 53. In order to determine the measures of reparation that are in order in this case, the Court will use as a basis the facts set forth in Section III of the Commission’s application and accepted by the State when it acknowledged its international responsibility15. Furthermore, at this stage of the proceeding, the parties have added elements of evidence to the file that are relevant to determine these measures of reparation. The Court has examined these elements and the arguments of the parties and declares that the following facts are proven: 14 cf. The “Street Children” case (Villagrán Morales et al.). Reparations, supra note 3, para. 55; and The “White Van” case (Paniagua Morales et al.). Reparations, supra note 4, para. 70. 15 cf. Trujillo Oroza case, supra note 1, paras. 2 and 36.