in accordance with the provisions of Articles 41(1)(b), 46 and 50 of the Rules of Procedure on the offering, convening and appearance of deponents. Consequently, this document is inadmissible. 45. The Court also places on record that the statement of Rodrigo Braganza, offered by the State as a witness and required in the first operative paragraph of the Order of the President of June 17, 2011, was not submitted. The State had accredited Mr. Braganza as a member of the delegation that would represent it at the hearing,46 and the representatives objected to this during the prehearing meeting, considering that he had been summoned as a witness. Mr. Braganza participated, as a member of the delegation accredited by the State, in the presentation of the State’s final oral arguments at the public hearing, referring to the issue of the pentolite buried on the territory of the Sarayaku People. In their final arguments, the representatives stated that the Court should not take this into consideration. Therefore, the Court finds that, since he was presented as a member of the State’s delegation, Mr. Braganza’s declarations do not constitute real probative elements, but rather arguments of one of the parties. 46. With regard to the testimony provided at the hearing by Oscar Troya, a witness proposed by the State, the Court notes that, when answering a question posed by the representatives during his testimony at the hearing, Mr. Troya accepted that he had been present in the courtroom during the testimony of the presumed victims, witnesses and experts. It is the obligation of the parties to inform the witnesses they offer about the rules for appearing before the Court. The Court considers that, in addition to affecting the principle of procedural equality between the parties to the proceedings, such conduct is contrary to the provisions of Article 51(6) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. Therefore, the Court will not admit Oscar Troya’s testimony. D. Assessment of the file on provisional measures 47. In the section on “Assessment of the evidence” of the chapter on “Analysis of the merits” of its application, the Inter-American Commission took into account that the file on precautionary measures had been processed before it and that the provisional measures ordered by the Court were also being processed. Then, it considered that, “having been a party to both proceedings, the State has had ample opportunity to challenge and object to the evidence supplied by the petitioners; thus, a procedural balance exists between the parties.” Therefore, the Commission added “the evidence supplied by the parties during the proceedings on the precautionary and provisional measures to the whole body of evidence.” For their part, the representatives have made numerous references in their pleadings and motions to the provisional measures or to documents provided in that context. Meanwhile, in its answer to the application, the State alleged that the reports it has sent on the provisional measures “must be assessed as evidence in favor of the State by the InterAmerican Court.” 48. The Court recalls that the purpose of the procedure on provisional measures, which are of an incidental, precautionary and protective nature, differs from that of a contentious case, both in the procedural aspects and in the assessment of the evidence and the implications of the decisions.47 However, unlike other cases,48 the presumed victims in this case have also been beneficiaries of those protective measures; in other words, the specific or potential group of beneficiaries is identical to the group of persons that comprises the presumed victims. In addition, the purpose of the provisional measures coincides with many substantive aspects of the case. Therefore, the briefs and documents submitted during the provisional measures proceedings will be considered part of the 46 The State presented a written request to accredit him on July 5, 2011. 47 Cf. Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 195, para. 69, and Case of Fernández Ortega et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 30, 2010. Series C No. 215, para. 70. 48 Cf. Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 29, 2009. Series C No. 194, para. 58, and Case of Perozo et al., para. 69. See also Case of Torres Millacura v. Argentina, para. 55, and Case of the Barrios Family v. Venezuela, para. 6. 15