examine and assess the documentary probative elements forwarded by the parties on different procedural occasions, as well as the testimony of the alleged victim, the testimony and expert opinions provided by affidavit and during the public hearing before the Court, together with the helpful evidence requested by the Court. To this end, the Court will respect the principles of sound judicial discretion, within the corresponding legal framework.20 1. Documentary, testimonial and expert evidence 27. The Court received an affidavit made by the expert witness: a) Antonio Canova González, university professor, expert witness proposed by the Inter-American Commission, who gave an opinion on: (i) “Venezuela’s domestic law on the functions of the Judiciary”; (ii) “the norms regulating the appointment and removal of judges”; (iii) “the situation of temporary judges;” (iv) “the powers of the Judicial Commission of the Supreme Court of Justice in the context of the Judiciary’s transition process,” and (v) “the effectiveness of the judicial remedies available in cases of arbitrary removal or dismissal.” 28. Regarding the evidence given during the public hearing, the Court received the testimony of: a) Mercedes Chocrón Chocrón, alleged victim, proposed by the Inter-American Commission, who testified on: (i) “the circumstances surrounding her removal from the Judiciary;” (ii) “the legal actions filed at the domestic level against that removal,” and (iii) “the alleged damage suffered as a result of her removal,” and b) Jesús Ollarves, witness proposed by the representatives, former member of the Second Appeals Chamber of the Caracas Metropolitan Criminal Circuit, who testified on the impact that provisional justice has had on the Judiciary and on the cases brought before the Venezuelan criminal courts. 2. Admission of the documentary evidence 29. In this case, as in others,21 the Court accepts the probative value of the documents presented by the parties at the appropriate procedural opportunity that were not contested or opposed, and whose authenticity was not questioned. 30. Regarding the newspaper articles, this Court has considered that they can be assessed when they contain public and noteworthy facts or declarations by State officials, or when they corroborate certain aspects of the case.22 The Court decides to admit the documents that are complete or that, at least, allow verification of their source and date of publication. It will assess them, taking into account of the 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; Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. v. Peru, supra note 19, para. 35, and Case of Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador, supra note 19, para. 19. 21 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 13, para. 140; Case of Abrill Alosilla v. Peru, supra note 19, para. 38, and Case of Vera Vera et al. v. Ecuador, supra note 19, para. 22. 22 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra note 13, para. 146; Case of Gomes Lund et al. (“Guerrilla do Araguaia”) v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2010. Series C No. 219, para. 56, and Case of Abrill Alosilla v. Peru, supra note 19, para. 40. 10