43. During the public hearing, witness Velia Muralles Bautista handed over a folder of documents from the Historical Archive of the National Police (supra para. 11), which was delivered to the parties and the Commission at the hearing. The Court admits this documentation, because it considers it useful for this case; moreover, it was not contested and its authenticity and veracity were not questioned. 44. Lastly, pursuant to Article 58(a) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, and considering them useful for deciding this case, the Court adds the following documents to the body of evidence: (a) copy of the document known as the “Diario Militar,” 36 (b) copy of Decree No. 51-92, enacting the Code of Criminal Procedure, 37 and (c) copy of Decree-Law 145-96, enacting the National Reconciliation Act. These documents were indicated by the parties in their briefs without submitting them directly; however, they were provided as evidence in the Case of Gudiel Álvarez (“Diario Militar”) et al. v. Guatemala, and the Court transfers them from that case file to this case. 38 Also, pursuant to the said Article 58(a) of the Rules of Procedure, and considering that they are useful for deciding this case, the Court adds the following documents to the body of evidence: (a) copy of the Agreement on the Basis for the Legal Integration of the Guatemalan National Revolutionary Unity, 39 and (b) copy of the Agreement on a Firm and Lasting Peace. 40 B.2) Admission of the statements of the presumed victims and of testimonial evidence 45. Regarding the testimony provided by the presumed victims and the witnesses during the public hearing and by affidavit, the Court finds this pertinent only to the extent that it is in keeping with the purpose defined by the President of the Court in the Order requesting it (supra para. 39). 41 It will be assessed in the corresponding chapter, together with the other elements of the body of evidence, and taking into account the observations of the parties. 46. Pursuant to this Court’s case law, the statements of the presumed victims cannot be assessed in isolation, but rather, within all the other evidence in the case, because they are useful insofar as that they can provide further information on the alleged violations and their consequences. 42 On this basis, the Court admits these statements (supra para. 39), and they will be assessed in keeping with the above-mentioned criteria. 47. Lastly, the Court notes that the Commission requested the incorporation into the body of evidence in this case of the testimony provided by Marco Tulio Álvarez Badilla in the Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (“Diario Militar”) v. Guatemala (supra paras. 11 and 12). In 36 Diario Militar. Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (“Diario Militar”) v. Guatemala (file of annexes to the Merits Report, tome I, annex 11, folios 333 to 409) 37 Decree-Law No. 51-92: Code of Criminal Procedure. Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (“Diario Militar”) v. Guatemala (file of annexes to the motions and arguments brief, tome I, annex A10, folios 9472 to 9605). 38 Decree No. 145-1996: National Reconciliation Act. Case of Gudiel Álvarez et al. (“Diario Militar”) v. Guatemala (file of annexes to the motions and arguments brief, tome IV, annex A55, folios 10484 to 10487). 39 Agreement on the Basis for the Legal Integration of the Guatemalan National Revolutionary Unity. Madrid, Spain. December 12, 1996. Available at: http://www.sepaz.gob.gt/index.php/acuerdos/separador2/ acuerdobases-incoporacion-unidad-revolucionaria-nacional-guatemalteca. 40 Agreement on a Firm and Lasting Peace. Guatemala, December 29, http://www.sepaz.gob.gt/index.php/acuerdos/separador2/acuerdo-paz-firme-duradera. 1996. Available at: 41 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 43, and Case of the Massacres of El Mozote and nearby places v. El Salvador, supra, para. 40. 42 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits, supra note 77, para. 43, and Case of Fontevecchia and D’Amico v. Argentina, supra footnote 70, para. 15. 16