23. The Court also finds the declarations and expert witness reports rendered to be pertinent inasmuch as they adhere to the purpose defined in the President's Order receiving them (supra para. 7). They will be examined in the appropriate chapter together with the rest of the body of evidence.12 Pursuant to the jurisprudence of this Tribunal, the testimony given by alleged victims cannot be weighed in isolation. Rather, it will be examined together with the rest of the evidence in the proceeding, as it is useful inasmuch as it can provide more information on the alleged violations and their consequences. 13 24. During the public hearing, the Court required the State to submit certain information and documents as evidence to facilitate adjudication. The Court noted that the State did not reply or submit some of the documents requested.14 Consequently, as it has done in other cases, the Court may consider facts alleged by the Commission and complemented by the representative as established when those allegations could only be refuted with evidence that the State should have submitted and did not.15 VI 12 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo V. Perú. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 43; Case of Gelman V. Uruguay. Merits and Reparaciones. Judgment of February 24, 2011. Series C No. 221, para. 39, and Case of Abrill Alosilla V. Perú, supra note 7, para. 47. 13 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo V. Perú, supra note 12, para. 43; Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores V. México, supra note 7, para. 39, and Case of Gelman V. Uruguay, supra note 12, para. 40. 14 The State did not respond to the following questions asked during the public hearing. (supra para. 8): • The autopsy report in the case file indicates that during this procedure, the bullet removed from the body of Pedro Miguel Vera Vera was sent for ballistic forensic studies. Was this ballistic study conducted? If the answer is yes, what were the results? The Illustrious State shall send the documentation to support the answer. • Are there any guidelines or rules on what to do when someone in police custody is in need of medical attention? • Is the prison doctor responsible for the health and physical care of people in custody? Is this doctor part of the 'administration'? • Is there any obligation, rule, practice, or law in the Illustrious State for prison, hospital, or private doctors or any other medical personnel establishing any obligation to report any case that comes to their attention involving a victim who has been shot? • What specific treatment did the doctors give to the victim when they examined him and apparently found that he had a gunshot wound? What was the specific treatment provided before he was put back under the police custody? • Why did Mr. Vera Vera's mother apparently have to make all efforts and press for her son to receive medical treatment when needed? Did the State find out why? Is it a practice in Ecuador that relatives have to pay for the medical treatment of persons who are under police custody? • Why did the mother apparently have to pay for pills, blood, or whatever [for Mr. Vera Vera]? Furthermore, the State did not submit the Ecuadorian Code of Ethics nor the "manuals, protocols, or whatever name is given to police custody procedures that existed in 1993 and those that exist in the present,” requested by the Court as evidence to better resolve during the mentioned hearing. 15 Cf. Radilla Pacheco V. México. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 92. 11