9 B) ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE 29. In this case, as in others,21 following Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal admits the value of the evidence in the documents submitted by the parties at the appropriate time, which were not challenged or rejected nor their authenticity questioned (supra paras. 9 and 13). 30. As regards the statements and expert witness reports that were not challenged by the parties, the Court considers them pertinent insofar as they refer to the objective defined by the President in her Resolution (supra para. 8) and admits them to be assessed following the rules of competent analysis and in conjunction with items of evidence in the trial. This Tribunal considers that the deposition made by the alleged victim cannot be assessed in isolation since the alleged victim is directly interested in this case; therefore, it shall be assessed within the group of evidence provided and in accordance with the rules of competent analysis. 31. On June 5, 2009, the representatives submitted a “list of maintenance expenses incurred during the imprisonment of Francisco Vicente Usón Ramírez from May 22, 2004, to December 24, 2007,” as an addendum to their final allegation. Such expenses total US $ 131,279.00 (one hundred and thirty-one thousand two hundred and seventy-nine U.S. dollars). The State challenged such document pointing out that “it is not certain” that the center where Mr. Usón Ramírez was detained “did not have adequate hygiene conditions or was unable to provide enough food for its inmates.” Likewise, the State pointed out that it is uncertain that “the medical service of such center did not have an adequate supply of medicine.” Therefore, the State indicated that “it reject[ed] the indemnity requested by General Usón” in such document. In turn, the Commission pointed out that it had no observations to make about this matter. 32. Likewise, on May 27, 2009, the State presented several “items of evidence” together with its brief of final allegations. Some of these items were already included in the evidence of the case,22 which was previously declared admissible (supra para. 29). However, 21 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 9, para. 88; Case of DaCosta Cadogan, supra note 9, para. 34, and Case of Garibaldi, supra note 11, para. 62. 22 Cf. inter alia, Condemnatory judgment of the First Military Tribunal of Judgment of Caracas on November 8, 2004 (case file of attachments to the petition, tomo II, attachment 64 fs. 1420 to 1492 and case file of appendices to the petition, appendix 3, , fs. 397 and 398); Judgment of June 2, 2005 in the Criminal Court of Appeals of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, wherein the appeal was rejected (case file of anexxes to the petition, tomo II, attachment 65, fs. 1493 to 1557); Order to transfer from the First Military Tribunal of First Instance of Guaira on May 23, 2004 (case file of de attachments to the petition, tomo II, attachment 66, fs. 1558 to 1559); decision by the First Military Tribunal of First Instance of Guaira on May 23, 2004 and the letter of notification to the Martial Court regarding the rejection of competence of the First Military Tribunal of Guaira on May 23, 200 (case file of attachments to the petition, tomo II, attachment 67, fs. 1560 to 1567); decision of the Martial Court on May 24, 2004 (case file of attachments to the petition, tomo II, attachment 68, fs. 1568 to 1572); Order of the Second Military Court of First Instance of Caracas on July 29, 2004 (case file of attachments to the petition, tomo III, attachment 73, fs. 1610 to 1613); decision of the First Military Tribunal of Judgment on October 4, 2004 (case file of attachments to the petition, tomo III, attachment 74, fs. 1614 to 1620); order of the Second Military Court of First Instance of Caracas on August 16, 2004 (case file of attachments to the petition, tomo III, attachment 75, fs. 1621 to 1659); appeal remedy against the condemnatory judgment of November 8, 2004 before the Martial Court acting as Appeals Court of the Criminal Military Circuit of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas presented on November 23, 2004 (case file of attachments to the petition, tomo III, attachment 81, fs. 1736 to 1847); Judgment of the Martial Court of the Criminal Military Circuit of Caracas on January 27, 2005, in relation with the appeal remedy (case file of attachments to the petition, tomo III, attachment 82, fs. 1848 to 1905); appeals remedy against the judgment of January 27, 2005 of the Martial Court of the Military Criminal Circuit of Caracas on February 28, 2005 (case file of attachments to the petition, tomo III, attachment 83, fs. 1906 to 2149); remedy for special review of decision No. 303 of the Criminal Appeals Court on June 2, 2006 and September 17, 2006 (case file of attachments to the petition, tomo III, attachment 84, fs. 2150 to 2214), and order of execution