10 to adopt domestic legislative measures established in Article 2 of this international instrument, as well as those obligations arising from Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Convention Against Torture and Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará. Based on the above, the Court finds it necessary to deliver a Judgment in which it determines the facts and all aspects of the merits of the matter, as well as their possible consequences on reparations. VII EVIDENCE 27. Based on the provisions of Articles 46, 47, 49, and 50 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, as well as in its jurisprudence regarding evidence and its assessment,21 the Court will examine and assess the documentary evidence submitted by the parties in the various procedural opportunities, as well as the statements, the testimony, and the opinions provided by affidavit and during the public hearing. To this end, the Court will abide by the principles of sound judicial discretion, within the corresponding normative framework.22 A. Documentary, testimonial, and expert evidence 28. The Court received the statements made before the public notary by the following alleged victims, witnesses, and expert witnesses:23 1. Inés Fernández Ortega,24 alleged victim, proposed by the InterAmerican Commission and the representatives. She testified about: i) the incident that occurred on March 22, 2002; ii) the measures taken to clarify the historical truth of the facts and to identify, prosecute, and punish those responsible; iii) the authorities’ attitude and response to these measures; iv) the alleged obstacles faced when trying to obtain justice; v) the alleged threats and acts of harassment against her, her family, and her representatives, because of the search to obtain justice, and vi) the consequences for her personal life and for her family of the alleged human rights violations in this case. 2. Noemí Prisciliano Fernández, Mrs. Fernández Ortega’s daughter, alleged victim, proposed by the Inter-American Commission and the 21 Cf. The “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76, para. 50; Case of Chitay Nech et al, supra note 18, para. 47, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas , supra note 18, para. 53. 22 Cf. The “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 76; Case of Chitay Nech et al, supra note 18, para. 47, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas, supra note 18, para. 53. 23 The Inter-American Commission desisted from the testimony of a member of Amnesty International and the representatives waived the expert opinion of Alda Facio Montejo, which was admitted by the President of the Court. On its behalf, Mexico did not propose witnesses nor experts. Cf. Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Summons to a public hearing, supra note 6, Considering clauses 22 and 28. 24 After submitting its final list of deponents witnesses and expert witnesses, the Inter-American Commission advised that Mrs. Fernández Ortega was “at an advanced stage of pregnancy, and therefore c[ould] not assist to testify at the public hearing.” The representatives specified that the alleged victim was scheduled to give birth around the date of the public hearing” and, since she was unable to attend the hearing, they asked whether her statement could be made before a public notary and not at the public hearing. The State did not establish “any objection to Mrs. Fernández Ortega presenting her testimony by affidavit.” The President admitted the request that Mrs. Fernández Ortega provide her testimony by affidavit. Cf. Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Summons to a public hearing, supra note 6, Considering clauses 10 to 12 and 14. At the start of the hearing and with the State’s consent, the Court was shown a video in which Mrs. Fernández Ortega addressed the Court, asking the authorities to hear and reach a decision regarding her complaint.