19 66. The representatives made observations on the content of the testimony of Sadi Pansera and Rolf Hackbart.50 67. The State submitted observations on the content of the testimony of Vanderlei Garibaldi,51 Giovani Braun,52 and the expert opinion of Sérgio Sauer.53 68. Regarding the observations made by the parties, first, the Court finds that, in keeping with the reiterated criterion in its case law, since the alleged victims Vanderlei Garibaldi and Iracema Garibaldi have a direct interest in this case, their testimonial statements cannot be assessed alone, and they will therefore be evaluated in conjunction with all the evidence in the proceedings.54 69. In addition, regarding the observations on the contents of the statements, the Court will take the arguments of the parties into consideration and will assess the statements to the extent that they are in keeping with the purpose established in the order of the President and together with the other elements in the body of evidence. 50 Regarding the merits, among other considerations, the representatives indicated that the witness Rolf Hackbart “merely [made] a general statement on the agrarian reform policy and the agencies responsible for implementing it, [without presenting] real data on the results of that policy.” In this regard, the representatives countered the assertions of the witness with the information provided in the expert opinion of Sérgio Sauer. Moreover, they indicated that the affirmation that Sétimo Garibaldi’s next of kin benefited from an agrarian reform program is untrue, and his widow, Iracema Garibaldi, continued living in an irregular situation with two of her children until 2007. Regarding the testimony of Sadi Pansera, they refuted the information he presented concerning violence against landless workers and countered the information provided by this witness with that contained in the publication Conflitos no Campo-Brasil 2007 of the Comissão Pastoral da Terra. Furthermore, the representatives indicated that both testimonies were “totally invalid” owing to the way in which they were rendered, because they were not certified by a notary or signed by the witnesses, so that the Court should not consider them. Cf. Brief of the representatives of March 16, 2009 (merits file, tome III, folios 1104 to 1106). Regarding the latter, copies of the testimonies received by the Court on February 10, 2009, were forwarded to the representatives and to the Inter-American Commission on February 19, 2009. The same day, the Court received the two original statements, duly signed and authenticated by notary public, the contents of which were identical to the ones forwarded. 51 Among other considerations, the State alleged that “the witness merely described the facts that caused the death of the landless worker, Sétimo Garibaldi, and stated that a lawyer had informed him about the closure of the Police Investigation” without mentioning the existence of possible measures adopted by the family to seek sanctions or reparation; therefore, he did not cover the points for which his testimony was proposed. Cf. Brief of the State of March 11, 2009 (merits file, tome III, folio 1084). 52 Among other considerations, the State alleged that this person extrapolated several aspects of the purpose of his testimony and gave opinions that did not correspond to the reality of the actual situation of Sétimo Garibaldi’s next of kin. It indicated that the following points should not be considered because they go beyond the facts of the case; (a) statements about land conflicts in Paraná that have nothing to do with the case; (b) opinions about the proceedings of the Judiciary and its actions with regard to the “paramilitary groups in the region,” and (c) comments on the alleged murder of a worker that is not related to the case. In addition, they countered the information presented by this witness on the living conditions of the next of kin of Sétimo Garibaldi, with the testimony of Rolf Hackbart, witness proposed by the State, who described the benefits supposedly granted by the State to Sétimo Garibaldi’s family. Cf. Brief of the State of March 11, 2009, supra note 51, folios 1084 and 1085. 53 The State rejected the comments made by the expert witness on the situation of rural workers and the supposed attempt to criminalize social movements in Brazil. During the proceedings before the Commission, it described several “programs and actions executed [by the State] to implement the agrarian reform and to combat violence in rural areas.” It added that “the Brazilian State does not deny the existence of problems that are still pending solution; [nevertheless,] the agrarian reform is underway even though episodes of violence sometimes occur despite the State’s efforts to combat them.” However, it could not accept that these situations were generalized, so that they appeared to be rife throughout the country, to the detriment of the policies and institutions that were working to democratize the right of access to land and the protection of the rights of rural workers. Cf. Brief of the State of March 11, 2009, supra note 51, folios 1085 and 1086. 54 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo, supra note 49, para. 43; Case of Escher et al., supra note 9, para. 72, and Case of Reverón Trujillo, supra note 30, para. 45.