-19- 52. The Court incorporates into the body of evidence, in accordance with the provisions of Article 44(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the documents forwarded by the representative on March 13, 2006 (supra para. 27), which were offered by the representative in his requests and arguments brief, and accepted by the Court in an order of February 7, 2006 (supra para. 23). 53. In application of the provisions of Article 45(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court incorporates into the body of evidence, the documents presented by the Commission and by the representative (supra paras. 41 and 43) in response to the President’s request for helpful evidence (supra para. 39), taking into account the State’s observations (supra paras. 44 and 45). 54. In accordance with Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure, and considering them useful for deciding this case, the Court adds to the body of evidence the document presented by the representative at the end of the public hearing held on April 3, 2006 (supra para. 32), the documents submitted as appendixes to his final written arguments (supra para. 34), and the document forwarded on August 7, 2006 (supra para. 47), taking into account the State’s observations, and assesses them with the body of evidence applying the rules of sound criticism. 55. In addition, pursuant to the provisions of Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court incorporates into the body of evidence in this case the Constitution of Chile, Act No. 19,980 of May 29, 2003, Supreme Decree No. 423 of April 5, 1994, and draft Act No. 3773 available on the Senate’s web page, because they are useful in the instant case. Assessment of testimonial and expert evidence 56. With regards to the statements made by the witnesses and expert witnesses proposed by the parties (supra paras. 32 and 49), which were not opposed or contested, the Court accepts them and grants them the corresponding probative value. The Court considers that the testimonial statements of Marcel Claude Reyes, Arturo Longton Guerrero and Sebastián Cox Urrejola (supra paras. 32 and 49), which are useful in this case, must be assessed together with all the evidence in the case and not in isolation, since they are alleged victims and have a direct interest in the case.4 VI PROVEN FACTS 57. Based on the evidence provided and bearing in mind the statements made by the parties, the Court considers that the following facts have been proved: The Foreign Investment Committee and the foreign investment mechanism regulated by Legislative Decree No. 600 57(1) Legislative Decree No. 600 of 1974, the text of which was consolidated, coordinated and systematized by Decree No. 523 of the Ministry of Economy, Development and Reconstruction of September 3, 1993, contains the Chilean Foreign 4 Cf. Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra note 2, para. 56; Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 2, para. 124; and Case of Baldeón García, supra note 2, para. 66.