VI EVIDENCE 30. Based on the provisions of Articles 46, 50, 57 and 58 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, as well as its case law regarding evidence and the assessment thereof, 17 the Court shall now examine and assess the documentary evidence forwarded by the parties at different procedural stages, the statements of the alleged victims and witnesses, the expert opinions rendered by affidavit and at the public hearing before the Court, as well as the evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case. In doing so, this Court shall adhere to the principles of sound judgment, within the applicable legal framework. 18 A. Documentary, testimonial and expert evidence 31. The Court received several documents presented as evidence by the Inter-American Commission, the representatives and the State, attached to their main briefs. The Court also received the following statements rendered by affidavit: A) Expert witness proposed by the Commission 1) Param Cumaraswamy, former United Nations Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, who referred to the principle of judicial independence under international human rights law and the implications of strict compliance with that principle in guarantees of due process and legality (freedom from ex post facto laws). He also referred to the requirements for ensuring that a constitutional or legal framework to regulate procedures for the removal of judges, is compatible with the guarantees of due process and legality, as corollaries of the principle of judicial independence. Finally, he referred to the application of these standards in any amendments or structural reforms applied to the Judiciary. B) Alleged victims proposed by the representatives 1) Eduardo Enrique Brito Mieles 19 and 2) Armando José Ramón Serrano Puig, who made statements on the alleged facts of the case, the alleged personal effects they suffered and continue to suffer due to the violation of their human rights, and the ways in which they would feel redressed if an alleged violation of their rights were to be declared. C) Witnesses proposed by the representatives 1) Alexandra Vela and 2) Enrique Ayala Mora, members of the 1997 Constituent Assembly, who referred to: i) the process for the selection of judges, and ii) discussions regarding constitutional norms for the regulation of the Supreme Court of Justice and the scope of such constitutional regulations, and 17 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, paras. 69 to 76, and Case of Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 21, 2013. Series C No. 261, para. 30. 18 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales and other) v. Guatemala. Merits, para. 76, and Case of Suárez Peralta V. Ecuador, para. 30. 19 The President of the Court summoned this alleged victim to testify by affidavit in the resolution December 20, 2012. However, the representatives informed the Court that Mr. Brito could not render his statement due to health reasons. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Court received as documentary evidence a written statement from Mr. Brito which was forwarded by the representatives together with the brief of pleadings and motions. Brief of the representatives of January 23, 2013 (Merits file, volume II, pages 1040 and 1041). 11