18 4) Sadi Pansera. Legal adviser of the Ouvidoria Agrária Nacional of the Ministry of Agrarian Development, witness proposed by the State. Among other matters, he testified on the State’s policy to combat violence in rural areas. 5) Sérgio Sauer. Degrees in philosophy and theology, doctorate in sociology, expert witness proposed by the representatives. Among other matters, he provided his expert opinion on the rural workers in relation to the right to land and the alleged continuous situation of vulnerability to violence, threats to life and physical integrity, and also on the supposed ineffectiveness of public policies to combat the violence. 61. Regarding the evidence provided during the public hearing, the Court received the testimony of the following persons:47 1) Iracema Garibaldi. Alleged victim, proposed by the Inter-American Commission. She testified, among other matters, on the investigation conducted in this case, the alleged obstacles and the resulting impunity, as well as the personal consequences for herself and for Mr. Garibaldi’s children. 2) Fábio André Guaragni. Witness proposed by the State. Among other matters, he testified about how Police Investigation No. 179/98 concerning Mr. Garibaldi’s murder had been conducted. 3) Salo de Carvalho. Expert witness proposed by the Inter-American Commission. He provided his expert opinion on technical aspects of the Police Investigation into the death of Mr. Garibaldi and the supposed impunity in relation to the judicial proceedings in relation to the murder of rural workers in Brazil in the context of the agrarian conflict. C. Assessment of the evidence 62. In this case, as in others, the Court accepts the probative value of those documents forwarded by the parties at the opportune procedural moment that were not contested or opposed and whose authenticity was not questioned.48 63. The Court accepts the documents provided by the State and the expert witness proposed by the Commission during the public hearing, because it considers them useful for this case; furthermore, they were not contested and their authenticity and veracity were not questioned. 64. Regarding the testimony and expert opinions given by the witnesses and expert witnesses during the public hearing and by sworn statements, the Court considers them pertinent to the extent that they respond to the purpose defined by the President of the Court in the order requiring them, taking into account the observations presented by the parties.49 65. In this regard, the Commission indicated that it had no observations to make on the sworn statements forwarded by the parties. 47 Minister Maria Thereza Rocha de Assis Moura, the expert witness proposed by the State, did not appear at the public hearing, but justified her absence. 48 Cf. Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140; Case of Escher et al., supra note 9, para. 67, and Case of Reverón Trujillo, supra note 30, para. 29. 49 Cf. Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 43; Case of Escher et al., supra note 9, para. 68, and Case of Reverón Trujillo, supra note 30, para. 30.