9 Power and its impact on the defense of human rights. 28. Regarding the evidence offered in the public hearing, the Court heard the statements of the following people: a) María Cristina Reverón Trujillo. Alleged victim. Proposed by the Commission. She testified, inter alia, on the facts that led to her dismissal from the Judicial Power, as well as the alleged damage caused as a consequence of that dismissal. b) Jesús Eduardo Cabrera Romero. Former Director of the National School of the Magistracy. Witness proposed by the State. He testified, inter alia, on the process and progress in the entitlement of the judges that have led the Supreme Court of Justice and the National School of the Magistracy. c) Gustavo Valero. Staff Director of the Executive Office of the Magistracy. Witness proposed by the State. He testified, inter alia, on the reparation measures carried out in compliance of the decision of the PoliticalAdministrative Chamber that annulled the dismissal of Mrs. Reverón Trujillo. d) Antonio Canova González. Attorney specialized in Administrative and Constitutional Law. Expert proposed by the representatives. He testified, inter alia, on the situation of the Venezuelan Judicial Power, its disciplinary regimen; as well as the constitutional and legal powers of the contentiousadministrative judges to order the comprehensive reestablishment of the juridical situations violated in the domestic Venezuelan law. 2. Assessment of the evidence 29. In this case, as in others,20 the Tribunal admits the evidentiary value of those documents presented in a timely manner by the parties that were not contested or objected, or whose authenticity was not questioned. With regard to the documents forwarded as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case (supra paras. 11 and 16), the Court incorporates them into the body of evidence, in application of that stated in Article 45(2) of the Rules of Procedure. In reference to the Order forwarded by the representatives on March 23, 2009 (supra para. 14), the Tribunal includes it in the body of evidence pursuant with Article 44(3) of the Rules of Procedure based on its supervening nature and because it was not objected or contested by the other parties. 30. Regarding the statements and expert opinions offered by the witnesses and experts in the public hearing and through affidavits, the Court considers them appropriate since they adjust to the object that was defined by the President of the Tribunal in the Ruling in which she ordered they be received (supra para. 7). 31. The representatives stated that the objections to witnesses and experts presented by the State in its brief of final arguments should be rejected because they are time-barred. They held that the procedural opportunity for their presentation expired in the month of December 2008, pursuant with the third operative paragraph of the President’s Order of September 24, 2008 (supra para. 7), which stated that the parties could present the observations they considered 20 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra note 9, para. 140; Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, supra note 9, para. 94; Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra note 15, para. 39.