18 (e) Alier Hernández, expert witness proposed by the State, Judge of the Third Section of the Counsel of State. His testimony related to the progress made in the standards applied in administrative law proceedings and their compatibility with international standards in cases involving the State’s civil and extra-contractual responsibility submitted to this jurisdiction that involved human rights violations. He also referred to the standards applied by the Colombian Council of State with regard to reparations, and presented the official decision of the Council of State approving the settlement in the case of Jesús María Valle Jaramillo; and (f) Sandra Jeannette Castro Ospina, informative deponent proposed by the State, Head of the National Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit of the Prosecutor General’s Office. She referred to the criminal investigations opened by the Prosecutor General’s Office to determine the presumed authors of the murder of Jesús María Valle Jaramillo. 52. In addition to the statements and expert opinions described above, the Commission, the representatives, and the State forwarded probative elements at various procedural opportunities, as well as during the public hearing or as helpful evidence requested by the President and the Court (supra paras. 8 to 18). B) ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE 53. In this case, as in others,20 the Court admits the probative value of those documents and statements submitted by the parties at the appropriate procedural opportunity, in the terms of Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure, which were not contested or opposed, and the authenticity of which was not questioned. 54. With regard to the testimonies, informative statements, and expert opinions given by the witnesses and expert witnesses by means of sworn statements (affidavits) and at the public hearing, the Court considers them pertinent to the extent that they relate to the purpose defined by the Court in the order requiring them (supra para. 8), taking into account the observations submitted by the parties. The Court considers that since the alleged victims have a direct interest in the case, their testimony cannot be assessed alone, and will therefore be evaluated in conjunction with all the body of evidence in the proceedings. 55. The representatives contested the statement made by Rafael Bustamante Pérez (supra para. 50(g)), affirming that “the purpose of his statement was not a personal and spontaneous presentation of the issues, but rather an almost exact transcript of the information included on the web page of the Ministry of the Interior and of Justice” and, therefore, “should not be admitted by the Court, as it does not correspond to what was required” by the order of November 30, 2007. Nevertheless, the Court admits this evidence to the extent that it relates to the purpose established in the Court’s order (supra para. 8), taking into account the observations of the representatives, and assessing it in accordance with the rules of sound judicial discretion and in conjunction with the body of evidence in the proceedings. 56. The also representatives contested the statement of José Guiller Patiño Escobar (supra para. 50(i)) because “there is no indication in any part of the document of a 20 Cf. Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140; Case of Bayarri, supra note 13, para. 35, and Case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 13, para. 67.