13 forward their observations regarding their content. The Court considers that the documents collected may be useful for the resolution of the case; therefore, pursuant to Article 58(a) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court considers it appropriate to admit the documents provided, which were included in the corresponding case file. C. Assessment of the Evidence 36. Based on the provisions of Articles 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 57 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, and on its consistent case law concerning evidence and its assessment, the Court will examine and assess the documentary probative elements forwarded by the parties and the Commission at the correct procedural moments, the statements and expert opinions provided through affidavits and at the public hearing. To this end, it will abide by the principles of sound judicial discretion, within the corresponding legal framework, taking into account all the evidence and arguments that have been presented.29 Similarly, the statements offered by the alleged victims will be assessed within the context of the evidence of the proceedings provided they can offer greater information on the alleged violations and their consequences.30 37. With regard to the in situ procedure (supra para. 15) aimed at obtaining additional information about the situation of the presumed victims and the places where some of the facts alleged in this case took place, the information received will be evaluated based on the circumstances in which they were produced. Thus, in accordance with this Court’s case-law, the statements made by the municipality authorities, members of the Community of Triunfo de la Cruz, and stakeholders cannot be assessed in isolation, but rather within the context of the evidence as a whole, because they are useful insofar as they can provide additional information about the alleged facts, the alleged violations, and their consequences.31 38. On the other hand, with regard to the other diligences carried out during the visit in situ, whose objective was to directly verify the location of the territories over which the controversies of the present case verse, the Court considers that they have offered a general vision of an important illustrative nature that can dimension, understand, and delimit the specific facts that make up the basis of the alleged violations presented to it. In this line, the Court grants validity to said diligences and assesses them within the totality of the evidence of the proceeding and under the rules of sound judgment. 39. Regarding the interview given by Mrs. Clara Flores (supra para. 34), the State indicated that it was “carried out in the Spanish language by the same person that gave their statement at the Public Hearing” and that “the OFRANEH [had] request[ed] [t]he Court […] it appoint a translator fluent in the Garífuna tongue since the witness Clara Eugenia Flores could not speak Spanish,” but that the mentioned interview “proves that [the witness] […] speaks and perfectly understands the Spanish language.” In this sense, the State requested that the Court consider “that the witness has violated the oath or sworn statement offered before [this Cfr. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37 para. 76, and Case of the Peasant Community of Santa Bárbara v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 299, para. 82. 29 Cfr. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 43, and Case of the Peasant Community of Santa Bárbara v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 299, para. 82. 30 Cfr. Case of Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of June 17, 2012. Series C. 245, para. 49. 31