8. Final written arguments and observations. On March 8, 2013, the State and the representatives submitted their final written briefs and the Commission presented its final written observations. The representatives and the State answered the Court’s requests for information and documentation to facilitate adjudication. III JURISDICTION 9. The Court has jurisdiction to hear this case under the terms of Article 62(3) of the Convention, given that Honduras has been a State Party to the Convention since September 8, 1977 and recognized the Court’s binding jurisdiction on September 9, 1981. IV EVIDENCE 10. Based on the provisions of Articles 46, 47, 50, 57 and 58 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure as well as its case law regarding evidence and the assessment thereof,6 the Court shall now examine and assess the documentary evidence forwarded by the parties at different procedural stages, the affidavits rendered and the statements received at the public hearing and the evidence requested by the Court to facilitate adjudication of the case. In doing so, the Court shall adhere to the principles of sound judgment within the applicable legal framework.7 A. Documentary, testimonial, and expert evidence 11. The Court received several documents presented as evidence by the Inter-American Commission, the representatives and the State, attached to their main briefs (supra paras. 4 to 6 and 8). The Court also received the statements of the following presumed victims rendered by affidavit:8 Rosa Margarita Valle Hernández, Carlos Antonio Luna Valle, Mariana Luna Valle, Allan Luna Valle, José Luna Valle and Roger Luna Valle; and of the expert witnesses Michael Reed-Hurtado,9 Luis Enrique Eguren10 and María Cecilia Kirby Villa.11 In 6 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, paras. 69 to 76, and Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 21, 2013. Series C No. 261, para. 30. 7 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.), supra, para. 76 and Case of Suárez Peralta, supra, para. 30. 8 Affidavits rendered by the presumed victims Rosa Margarita Valle Hernández and Carlos Antonio Luna Valle regarding the facts of the case, the threats received and the damage and effects suffered by them and their family following the death of Carlos Antonio Luna López. Affidavits rendered by the alleged victims Mariana Luna Valle, Allan Luna Valle, José Luna Valle, and Roger Luna Valle with respect to the facts of the case and the damages and impacts suffered by them and their families. 9 Affidavit rendered by the expert Michael Reed-Hurtado on international standards concerning the State’s duty to prevent cases of threats against defenders and its duty to combat the pattern of impunity of actions that affect them, through the application of investigation protocols that take into account the risks inherent to the work of human rights defenders. 10 Affidavit rendered by the expert Luis Enrique Eguren regarding the basic and essential standards that should be considered in establishing a global policy for the protection of human rights defenders and other countries’ best practices for this type of policy. 11 The representatives requested the substitution of the expert opinion of Mrs. Alicia Neuburger, indicated in the brief of pleadings and motions, for that of Mrs. Maria Cecilia Kirby Villa. In the absence of any objection by the State, the Court approved the request. Cf. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on January 31, 2013, Ruling of the Inter-American Court of January 31, 2013, Resolution 2. Affidavit rendered by the expert witness María Cecilia Kirby Villa regarding the effects suffered by Rosa Margarita Valle Hernández, Carlos Antonio Luna Valle, César Augusto Luna Valle, Lubina Mariana Luna Valle, Allan Miguel Luna Valle, José Fredy Luna Valle and Roger Herminia 7