technical and legal methodologies applied in the appointment of judges of Ecuador’s National Court of Justice, and comparative law, as it relates to this case. 32. of: As to the evidence rendered at the public hearing, the Court heard the statements A) Alleged victim 1) Arturo Javier Donoso Castellón, who testified on the alleged facts of the case, the personal effects he allegedly suffered and still suffers because of the alleged violation of his human rights and the manner in which he would feel redressed if an alleged violation of his rights were to be declared. B) Expert witness proposed by the representatives 1) Julio César Trujillo, a member of the 1998 Constituent Assembly and of the National Council for Higher Education, who testified on the way in which due process is applied under the Ecuadorian judicial system, definition of the natural judge, definition of the principle of independence and impartiality and the procedure for appointing and removing the judges of Ecuador’s highest court, in relation to this case. C) Expert witnesses proposed by the State 1) Marcelo Bonilla, university professor, who discussed the problem of the division of powers and democracy in Ecuador, the tripartite division of powers in the 1998 Constitution, checks and balances, and the division of powers in the 2008 Constitution, in relation to this case, and 2) César Landa, former president of the Constitutional Court of Peru and university professor, who referred to rights acquired and rights fulfilled, the doctrine of nonjusticiable political questions, the application of pre-constitutional provisions or the supervening unconstitutionality of the provisions, the theory of legal remedies (expiry, continuity and review) and the formal and practical limits of constitutional interpretation, in relation to resolving the legal problems in this case. B. Admission of the evidence 33. In the case at hand, as in others, the Court admits those documents forwarded by the parties at the proper procedural stage, which have not been disputed or challenged, or their authenticity questioned, only insofar as these are pertinent and useful in determining the facts and their possible legal consequences. 21 34. Furthermore, the Court considers pertinent the statements of the alleged victims, the witnesses and the expert opinions rendered by affidavit and at the public hearing insofar as these relate specifically to the purpose defined by the President of the Court in the Order requiring them (supra paras. 31 and 32). These statements shall be assessed together with the entire body of evidence. Also, in accordance with this Court’s case law, the statements rendered by the alleged victims cannot be assessed separately, but as part of the entire 21 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140, and Case Mendoza et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of May 14, 2013, para. 53. 13