contract, which should be contested by a judicial complaint under administrative law. Hence, in its Report 62/04, the Commission concluded that the application for amparo was appropriate according to the Ecuadorian law applicable to the case and that the exception contemplated in Article 46(2)(c) of the Convention was applicable, due to the lack of effectiveness of the remedy. Consequently, the Commission requested that, based on the estoppel principle, the objection be declared inadmissible. For their part, the representatives agreed with the Commission, presented other arguments, and asked the Court to reject this objection. 30. Based on the provisions of Article 42(6) in relation to the provisions of Articles 61, 62 and 64 of its Rules of Procedure, the Court finds that, having acknowledged its responsibility in the instant case, the State has accepted the full competence of the Court to hear this case, so that, in principle, the filing of a preliminary objection of failure to exhaust domestic remedies is incompatible with this acknowledgement.32 Furthermore, the content of the said objection is closely related to the merits of this matter, particularly as regards the alleged violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. Consequently, the objection filed has no purpose and it is not necessary to analyze it. VI EVIDENCE 31. Based on the provisions of Articles 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 57 and 58 of its Rules of Procedure, and on its case law regarding evidence and its assessment,33 the Court will examine and assess the documentary evidence submitted by the Commission, the representatives and the State at the different procedural stages, the statements of the presumed victims and witnesses and the expert opinions provided by affidavit and at the public hearing before the Court. In doing so, the Court will abide by the principles of sound judicial discretion, within the applicable legal framework.34 A. Documentary, testimonial, and expert evidence 32. The Court received diverse documents offered as evidence by the Inter-American Commission, the representatives, and the State, together with their main briefs. The Court also received affidavits provided by four presumed victims,35 namely: Sabine Bouchat, Bertha Gualinga, Franco Viteri and José Gualinga, all members of the Sarayaku, and six expert witnesses: Rodolfo Stavenhagen, Alberto Acosta Espinosa, Víctor Julio López Acevedo, Bill Powers, Shashi Kanth and Suzana Sawyer. 33. The Court records that, in their brief of June 23, 2011, the representatives stated that they had “decided to present the written statements” of four of the presumed victims and “to desist from presenting” the statements of eight other presumed victims, all of which were required by the Order of the President of June 17, 2011.36 Once the President has ordered the presentation of a statement, the submission of this evidence no longer depends on the decision of the parties; accordingly, not 32 Cf. Case of the Mapiripán Massacre v. Colombia. Preliminary objections. Judgment of March 7, 2005. Series C No. 122, para. 30, and Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 104. Similarly, see Case of Montero Aranguren et al. (Reten de Catia) v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 5, 2006. Series C No. 150, para. 50, and Case of Vélez Loor v. Panama, Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, para. 27. 33 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. 51 and Case of Forneron and daughter v. Argentina, para. 10. 34 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 76 and Case of Forneron and daughter v. Argentina, para. 10. 35 The State did not submit the affidavit of the witness Rodrigo Braganza, offered by the State and required in the Order of the President of the Court of June 17, 2011 (supra para. 11) 36 The representatives did not submit the affidavits of Mario Santi, Felix Santi, Isidro Gualinga, Eriberto Gualinga, Marcia Gualinga, Bolivar Dahua, Eliza Cisneros and Reynaldo Gualinga, offered by them and required by Order of the President of the Court of June 17, 2011 (supra para. 11). 12