9 and as a method of reparation, the Court finds it necessary to pass a Judgment to establish the facts and all the elements on the Merits of the instant case, as well as the related consequences regarding reparations. VI EVIDENCE 36. Based on Articles 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as on the case law of the Court concerning evidence and its assessment,14 the Court will proceed to examine and assess the documentary probative elements forwarded by the parties at different procedural opportunities, the statements provided by affidavit and the testimony received at the public hearing (supra para. 10), as well as the helpful evidence requested by the President (supra para. 11). In this regard, the Court will abide by the principles of sound judicial discretion, within the corresponding legal framework.15 A) Documentary, Testimonial and Expert Evidence 37. The statements made before notary public (affidavits) by the following alleged victims, witnesses and expert witnesses were accepted:16 a) Trinidad Marcial Bueno-Romero, former personal assistant to Blanca Jeannette Kawas-Fernández and witness proposed by the Commission. Her testimony referred to: (a) the work of Blanca Jeannette Kawas in her capacity as a defender of the environment and natural resources; (b) the alleged conflicts with peasants of the Unión Nacional Campesina (UNC) and with industrialists from the Hondupalma company in the agricultural sector; and (c) what she knew about the facts that occurred on February 6, 1995. b) Danelia Ferrera-Turcios, Director General of the Prosecutor’s Office and witness proposed by the State. She testified about the lawsuits filed in the cases of the death of Carlos Escalera-Mejía, Carlos Antonio Luna-López, Hernaldo Zúñiga and other environmentalists named by the Commission and the representatives in their applications, as well as the results of those actions, the individuals convicted, the arrest warrants issued, and the status of the said cases. c) Selsa Damaris Watt-Kawas, alleged victim in the instant case proposed by the representatives. She testified about: (a) the work performed by her mother, Blanca 14 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua-Morales et al.) V. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 76; Case of Ríos et al. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 10, para. 101; and Case of Perozo et al. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 10, para. 112. 15 Cf. Case of Nogueira de Carvalho et al. V. Brazil. Preliminary Objections and Merits. Judgment of November 28, 2006. Series C No. 161, para. 55; Case of La Cantuta V. Perú. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 59; and Case of Kimel. Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra note 9, para. 29. 16 In relation to testimony given by Blanca Fernández and Carmen Marianela Kawas-Fernández, offered by the representatives and required by the Order of the President, on November 7, 2008, the representatives presented a communication affirming that “with regard to the testimony of Blanca Fernández, mother of the [alleged] victim in the case, we desist from presenting this because [...] she is currently 82 years of age and her physical and mental condition has deteriorated so that it is not possible to provide the requested statement. We also desist from the testimony of Carmen Marianela Kawas-Fernández, the [alleged] victim’s sister, because she was unable to make the required statement and carry out the corresponding authentication procedure, since she is currently responsible for the care of her mother, Blanca Kawas, whose health […] has deteriorated.”