8 exercise of the principles that inspire the Inter-American Convention, and to the conduct that the States are obliged to observe in this regard.15 34. Taking into account the responsibilities incumbent on this Court, as an international body entrusted with the protection of human rights, the Court deems it necessary to deliver a judgment in which it determines the facts and all the elements relating to the merits of the case, as well as the corresponding consequences, since the delivery of the judgment contributes to making reparation to Messrs. Chaparro and Lapo, to avoiding a repetition of similar facts and, in summary, to satisfying the purposes of the Inter-American jurisdiction over human rights.16 VI EVIDENCE 35. Based on Articles 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure, and also on the Court’s case law regarding evidence and its assessment,17 the Court will proceed to 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 expert witness statements made by affidavit. In this regard, the Court will take into account the principles of sound criticism, within the corresponding legal framework.18 A) DOCUMENTARY, TESTIMONIAL AND EXPERT EVIDENCE 36. The President of the Court decided that the sworn statements and those made before public notary (affidavit) of the following expert witnesses proposed by the Commission should be received: a) Yazmín Kuri González testified, inter alia, about the alleged financial losses suffered by the alleged victims and the corresponding reparations, and b) Jorge Fantoni Camba testified, inter alia, about the nature and application of the Ecuadorean Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter “the NDPSA”). 37. Regarding the evidence provided during the public hearing, the Court heard the statements of the alleged victims offered by the Commission. Mr. Chaparro and Mr. Lapo testified, inter alia, about their arrest, the measures taken to seek justice, the alleged deprivation and subsequent return of their property, the judicial actions filed, and the consequences of the judicial proceedings against them. 15 Cf. Case of Zambrano Vélez et al., supra note 13, para. 30; Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of 11 de mayo de 2007. Series C No. 164, para. 34, and Case of the Rochela Massacre, supra note 13, para. 29. 16 Cf. Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 57; Case of Bueno Alves, supra note 15, para. 35, and Case of the Rochela Massacre, supra note 13, para. 54. 17 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, paras. 66 to 69; Case of Servellón García et Honduras. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, paras. 32 and Case of Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series 149, paras. 42 to 45. 18 costs. al. v. to 35, C No. Cf. Case of La Cantuta, supra note 16, para. 59; The Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, paras. 182 to 185, and Case of Nogueira Carvalho et al., supra note 10, para. 55.