9 alleged victims [and] their representatives, as well as the Inter-American Commission, acted in the proceeding before the latter body on the basis of the position of acknowledgment taken up by the State.16 34. In this way, the acts of acknowledgment carried out by the State during the processing of an application before the Commission are by necessity relevant for determining the application of the estoppel principle with regard to contradictory positions alleged during the proceeding of the case before the Court. If the dispute submitted by the Commission before this Tribunal is by necessity based on certain acts of acknowledgment carried out by the State, then the State cannot later deny the juridical effect these statements have on the outcome of the dispute submitted by the Commission before the Court. Therefore, the Court finds that through its actions in the proceeding before the Commission, the Peruvian State did not object to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, which consequently had a juridical effect on which both the representative and the Commission acted. VI EVIDENCE 35. Based on the provisions of Articles 46, 49, and 50 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as on its case law relative to evidence and the examination thereof,17 the Court will proceed to examine the evidentiary elements submitted by the parties on various occasions during the proceedings, the statements given via affidavit and the statements received during public hearings, as well as the evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case that was requested by the Tribunal. In doing so, the Court will follow the rules of sound judgment, within the applicable legal framework.18 1. Documentary, testimonial and expert evidence 36. The statements given before public notary (affidavits) by the following expert witnesses were received: a) Samuel Abad Yupanqui, expert witness proposed by the Inter-American Commission, who gave an expert witness report on: i) “the relationship between domestic law and international human rights law with regard to access to an effective remedy in the terms of Article 25 of the American Convention,” and ii) “the reasons for which arbitrariness in the judicial ruling given in this case constitutes a denial of justice under Article 25 thereof, among other issues addressed in this […] application.” 19 16 Cf. Case of Acevedo-Jaramillo et al. supra note 14, para. 177. 17 Cf. Case of 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 Gomes Lund et al “Guerrilha do Araguaia” v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2010. Serie C No. 219, para. 51, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. México. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Serie C No. 220, para. 24. 18 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 76; Case of Gomes Lund et al “Guerrilha do Araguaia”, supra note 17, para. 51, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores, supra note 17, para. 24. 19 In application of the provisions of the new Rules of Procedure, on September 13, 2010, the State prepared four questions to be answered by the expert witness Samuel Abad Yupanqui when giving his statement before the public notary. On September 10, 2010, the Inter-American Commission said it “[did] not have questions to ask expert witness Jorge González Izquierdo.” A note from the Secretariat of the Court dated September 14, 2010, following the instructions of the Acting President in this case, specified that according to Article 50(5) of the Rules of Procedure, “leading questions and questions that do not refer to the subject at hand in an opportune fashion will not be admitted.” Taking this into account, the Acting President found it pertinent to request that expert witness Abad Yupanqui respond in his statement to the following questions prepared by the Illustrious State: a) Under the protection of domestic law and international human rights law, what do you understand access to an effective remedy to mean?” and b) “In its admissibility report, the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights estimated that 185 workers had exhausted domestic remedies, and