43. The Court deems it pertinent to admit the statements made during the hearing,22 and also the affidavits23 insofar as they are in keeping with the purpose defined by the President in the order requiring them.24 44. In communications sent on June 13 and 14, 2022, representative Jemio Mendoza and the inter-American public defenders advised the Court of difficulties to find notaries public who would agree to notarize the statements of several of the proposed declarants, particularly those who were serving prison sentences. A Secretariat note of June 15, 2022, advised that “if the representatives found it impossible to arrange for the statements of the alleged victims and the witnesses to be provided before a notary public or other attesting officer, they may forward simple sworn statements signed by the declarant and accompanied by a copy of the respective identity document, explaining why it was not possible to obtain the affidavits.” 45. Consequently, the respective representatives presented the statements of alleged victims Víctor Manuel Boggiano Bruzzón, Eladio Cruz Añez and Blas Valencia Campos that had merely been signed, accompanied by the declarant’s identity document. The statement of Luis Fernando Lulleman Gutiérrez was originally sent with just his signature; however, the representatives subsequently forwarded a notarized version of the same statement. Taking into account the reasonable nature of the justifications provided by the representatives regarding the difficulties to find notaries willing to notarize the statements and the obstacles to access the declarants who were in prison, the Court admits those statements. 46. In the case of the joint statement by the witnesses Pablo García Nava and Marcelo Flores Torrico, the purpose defined by the President’s order was “the physical and psychological assessment of alleged victims Víctor Manuel Boggiano Bruzzón, F.E.P.M., Victoria Gutiérrez de Lulleman, Luis Fernando Lulleman Gutiérrez, Raúl Oswaldo Lulleman Gutiérrez and Jenny Paola Lulleman owing to the alleged torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of which they were victims, as well as the consequences of this on their personal and work lives.” However, the Court notes that the witness statements were presented individually and that they only refer to alleged victims F.E.P.M. and Víctor Boggiano Bruzzón. The inter-American public defenders indicated that the notary public who agreed to notarize the statements required them to be made individually. Also, the declarants were only able to interview alleged victims F.E.P.M. and Víctor Boggiano Bruzzón and, therefore, their statements could only refer to those two cases. 47. The Court considers that the statements presented correspond to the purpose determined in the President’s order of May 25, 2022, even though only partially, as they do not cover all the alleged victims mentioned. Also, the reason for their individual presentation responded to factors beyond the control of the public defenders. The Court also notes that the admissibility of these statements was not contested or disputed. Consequently, the Court finds these statements admissible. The Court received the statement of alleged victim F.E.P.M. in a private hearing. Subsequently, during the public hearing, it received the statements of alleged victim Mauricio Marcelo Valenzuela Valencia and expert witness María Luisa Piqué. 22 23 The Court received the affidavits of alleged victims Raul Oswaldo Lulleman Gutiérrez, Luis Fernando Lulleman Gutiérrez, Patricia Catalina Gallardo Ardúz, Claudia Mariela Valencia Alarcón, Norma Lupe Alarcón de Valencia, Alexis Eduardo Valencia Alarcón, Gabriel Blas Valencia Alarcón, Claudio Tito Centeno Valencia and Carlos Álvaro Taboada Valencia, and of witnesses Marcelo Flores Torrico, André Gautier and Rose Mary Blanco and, finally, of expert witnesses Barbara Barnath and Diana Esther Guzmán Rodríguez. The purposes of all these statements were established in the order of the President of the Inter-American Court of May 25, 2022. Available at: https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/valencia_campos_y_otros_25_05_22.pdf. 24 13