35 disappeared detainees, and there were fourteen victims between 1995 and 1997, 29 homicides, 51 cases of torture, 145 cases of physical aggression, and 251 of unlawful deprivation of liberty. But what stood out most was application of the so-called “flight law” to five inmates in 1997. This “law” is constantly used by the guards in Ecuador’s prisons as a mechanism for social cleansing within the prisons. The Penitenciaría del Litoral is sixteen kilometers from the city of Guayaquil and possibly twenty kilometers from the closest health center, and there has been no willingness to build an operating room within the center, so there are cases of people who cannot withstand the trip to Guayaquil and die on the way. Currently there is a health center next to the prison. However, that center has three or four physicians who work four hours a day, Monday to Friday, to address the needs of three thousand five hundred inmates. Over the weekend there are no physicians available for them, and some die in the prisons. Ecuador’s 1998 Political Constitution offers basic rules that should be applied to improve the Ecuadorian Penitentiary System. First of all, restriction of the period that a person may be in preventive detention and, secondly, respect for a minimum system for separation and classification of indictees or suspects, for the former to remain in provisional detention centers. The Ecuadorian penal system must be modified, and this requires changes to legislation, to the criminal investigation system, and to the penitentiary system. Impunity in Ecuador is one of the country’s worst problems. Sometimes there have been up to sixty complaints per year against policemen who have abridged human rights, and not one of them has been sentenced. C) ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE Assessment of the Documentary Evidence 77. In this case, as in others,23 the Court acknowledges the evidentiary value of the documents submitted by the parties at the appropriate procedural moment, or requested as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case, which were not disputed nor challenged, and whose authenticity was not questioned. 78. The Court finds the compact disk submitted by the representatives on July 7, 2004 during their oral pleadings at the public hearing on preliminary objections and merits, reparations, and costs (supra para. 34) useful, to rule on this case, together with the documents submitted by witness Juan Montenegro and expert witness Santiago Argüello Mejía, during their testimony and expert opinion, at that same public hearing (supra para. 35), and it notes that these documents were neither disputed nor challenged, and their authenticity or veracity was not questioned, and it therefore decides to add them to the body of evidence, pursuant to the provision set forth in Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure. 79. In regards to the sworn statements of Eric Orhand, Frederique Tibi and Blandine Pelissier (supra paras. 30 and 73), additionally submitted by the 23 See Case of the Goméz Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 8, para. 50; Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 9, para. 73; and Case of Molina Theissen. Reparations, supra note 9, para. 31.