36 mental and physical health problems, and many families have a very precarious financial situation and do not have access to medical care. The expert considers that, as part of the treatment to aid recovery, the next of kin need a care procedure that takes into account the social and political nature of the act and a type of psychological help that understands the consequences of the disappearance. Collective mechanisms should be provided, provided the next of kin want and accept this; but they also need individual forms of care or support for their needs. It is important that the program put in place take into consideration the needs and requirements of the next of kin. As a way of alleviating the damage, most of the next of kin of the alleged victims have stated that they need a form of acknowledgment by society, such as a monument or some publicly identified place, which recognizes the dignity of the tradesmen and also provides some kind of public expression. The financial compensation offered to the next of kin of the alleged victims will contribute to the development (education and training) of the children and has been a fairly frequent request by those who have dependent parents or who are in financial need. In the case of the financial compensation, the expert considers it important that the damage should not be presented on a comparative basis, because that could lead to a form of privatization of the harm, or even conflicts about the damage. C) EVIDENCE ASSESSMENT Documentary evidence assessment 73. In this case, as in others,12 the Court accepts the probative value of the documents presented by the parties at the proper procedural opportunity or as helpful evidence, that were not contested or opposed, and whose authenticity was not questioned. 74. The Court considers useful for deciding this case, the documents submitted by the Commission on April 22, 2004, during the presentation of the final oral arguments at the public hearing on merits and possible reparations and costs (supra paras. 53 and 70), and also those presented as attachments to their final written arguments (supra paras. 56 and 70), particularly as they were not contested or opposed, and their authenticity was not questioned, so it adds them to the body of evidence, applying the provisions of Article 44(1) of the Rules of Procedure. 75. Regarding the documentary evidence requested from the State on the instructions of the President and indicated in paragraph 68 of the application, the latter submitted most of this helpful evidence late, specifically the copies of the files of the criminal proceedings before the ordinary jurisdiction and of the file of the military criminal proceeding (supra paras. 19, 21, 22, 45, 46, 57 and 68). Even though the State had been asked to forward this evidence on March 15, 2002 (supra para. 19), it presented the copies on May 24 and 26, 2004, (supra para. 57), after 12 Cf. Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 3, para. 52; Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 3, para. 128; and Case of Bulacio, supra note 3, para. 57.