19 signature and its authentication before a notary public, as required” by the Court in its order of November 30, 2007. The representatives stated that “the formalities indicated by the Court for this ‘informative’ statement were not complied with and, therefore, it should not be assessed.” The Court observes that, according to the case file, Mr. Patiño’s declaration was duly signed before a notary public in Colombia, respecting the formal requirements indicated in the order of November 30, 2007. Consequently, the Court admits this evidence, which will be assessed in accordance with the rules of sound judicial discretion together with all the evidence in the proceedings. 57. The State contested the statement made by Fernando María Velásquez Velásquez, because it exceeded “the purpose [of his] testimony.” It also contested the statement of Rafael Alberto Rincón Patiño because it referred to “alleged facts in a general and incomplete manner [and was not limited to the] purpose for which it had been requested.” The State also contested the statement made by Saúl Jaramillo Giraldo because he testified about “facts that did not relate to the purpose of the evidence [and exceeded] the purpose of the testimony required by the Court.” In addition, the State raised the objection that, when testifying about the assets of Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa and his family, Mr. Jaramillo Giraldo “exaggerated some economic activities and figures that were not alleged in the brief with pleadings, motions, and evidence” of the representatives. In addition, the State contested the statement made by María Amanda Correa Zuleta because she was a “witness with an interest in the result of the case,” “owing to her relationship to the family of Carlos Fernando Jaramillo.” The statement by Darío Arcila Arenas was also contested by the State because it went beyond “the purpose of his testimony [by mentioning] as a new fact that Jesús María Valle ‘helped poor students at the Universidad de Antioquia by paying their enrollment fees’ […].” Lastly, the State contested the statement made by Juan Guillermo Valle Noreña because he was a “witness with an interest in the result of the case” “owing to his relationship with the family of Jesús María Valle Jaramillo.” In this regard, the Court takes into account the observations made by the State and finds that the statements [to which it objected] can assist the Court in determining the facts of this case to the extent that they relate to the purpose defined by the Court. It thus admits these statements and assesses them in accordance with the rules of sound judicial discretion, together with the body of evidence in the proceedings. 58. The Commission and the representatives requested that some of the facts contained in the judgment delivered by the Court in the case of the Ituango Massacres be transferred to the instant case, together with some of the statements and expert opinions provided in proceedings before the Commission and the Court. Specifically, they requested the incorporation into the body of evidence of the statements made by Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa during the hearing held before the Commission on March 1, 2004, in relation to the instant case, as well as in the hearing held before the Court on September 22, 2005, in the case of the Ituango Massacres. They also asked for the incorporation of the statement made by Carlos Álvaro Bonilla Cifuentes, Regional Prosecutor of Medellín at the time of the facts, during the hearing held before the Commission on March 2, 2000, in the case of the La Granja Massacre (the Ituango Massacres). Lastly, they requested the incorporation of the expert opinion given by Federico Andreu during the hearing held before the Court on March 7, 2005, in the case of the Mapiripán Massacre. In this regard, the State indicated that “it would not be pertinent to transfer the political and historical context indicated in the case of the Ituango Massacres, because: (i) the two cases do not share the same time and place; (ii) the two cases do not share the attribution of State responsibility, and (iii) a need for this transfer of facts and the attribution of responsibility from one case to the other cannot be derived from the concept of common evidence.” Nevertheless, in a communication of December 14, 2007, the State indicated that “should the Court decide to transfer these statements […], they should be examined and assessed in relation to the