19 reevaluate the decisions of military courts. C) EVIDENCE ASSESSMENT Documentary Evidence Assessment 55. In the instant case, as in others,4 the Court recognizes the evidentiary value of the documents submitted by the parties at the appropriate procedural stage or as evidence to facilitate the adjudication of the case pursuant to Article 45(2) of the Rules of Procedure, which have not been disputed nor challenged, and whose authenticity has not been questioned. 56. Moreover, the State produced evidence regarding an event subsequent to the filing of the complaint, in accordance with Section 44(3) of the Rules; therefore, the Court admits as evidence those documents that were not objected, whose authenticity was not challenged and that are related to the instant case (supra paras. 44 and 45).5 57. As regards the testimonial evidence and the written expert witness opinion issued through affidavits, pursuant to the Order issued by the President on March 28, 2005 (supra paras. 23 and 29), the Court admits them inasmuch as they are in accordance with the purpose of said Order and assesses them as a whole with the rest of the body of evidence, applying thereto the standards of reasonable credit and weight analysis, and taking into account the points made by the parties (supra para. 33). As to the sworn statements which have not been given before a public official whose acts command full faith and credit by three witnesses and an expert witness proposed by the representatives, the Court admits them inasmuch as they serve the purpose set forth by the Order of the President issued on March 18, 2005, and assesses them as a whole with the rest of the body of evidence, applying thereto the standards of reasonable credit and weight analysis and taking into consideration the comments filed by the State. In other instances, the Court has admitted sworn statements which were not executed before a public officer with authority to confer full faith and credit to the acts passed before him, provided legal certainty and procedural equality between the parties was not impaired.6 As stated by the Court, the statements made by the relatives of the alleged victims may provide useful information on the violations alleged and their consequences.7 Moreover, the Court ratifies the decision of the President in the Order issued on April 28, 2005, to accept the waiver by the representatives of the testimony of Manuel González-Araya and 4 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 1, para. 77; Case of Raxcacó-Reyes, supra note 1, para. 38, and Case of Gutiérrez-Soler, supra note 1, para. 43. 5 Cf. Case of YATAMA. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 127, para. 113; Case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, para. 41; and Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters. Judgment of March 01, 2005. Series C No. 120, para. 37. 6 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 1, para. 82; Case of Gutiérrez-Soler, supra note 1, para. 45; and Case of the Girls Yean and Bosico, supra note 2, para. 93. 7 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 1, para. 81; Case of Raxcacó-Reyes, supra note 1, para. 39, and Case of Gutiérrez-Soler, supra note 1, para. 45