21. The Court has established that alleged victims must be indicated in the Commission’s report under Article 50 of the Convention and in its application. In addition, according to Article 34(1) of the Rules of Procedure, it is the responsibility of the Commission, and not this Court, to identify precisely and on the proper procedural occasion the alleged victims in a case before the Court.18 Since Mrs. Fénelon and Mr. Benoit were not named as alleged victims in the Commission’s application, they will not be considered alleged victims. VI EVIDENCE 22. Based on the provisions of Articles 46 and 50 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as on its case law concerning evidence and its assessment,19 the Court will examine and assess the documentary evidence submitted by the parties on different procedural occasions. To this end, the Court will observe the principles of sound judicial discretion within the corresponding legal framework.20 A. Documentary, testimonial and expert evidence 23. The Court received various documents presented as evidence by the Inter-American Commission and the representatives together with their main briefs (supra paras. 1, 5 and 11). In addition, affidavits were received from three expert witnesses:21 a) Mario Joseph, expert witness proposed by the Commission, lawyer, who gave an opinion on the shortcomings of the Haitian criminal justice system, and on the alleged lack of investigation of acts in which State agents are presumably involved. b) Thomas M. Griffin, expert witness proposed by the representatives, Legal Affairs Director of the “Lamp for Haiti Foundation,” who gave an opinion on the supposed conditions of Haitian detention centers and the alleged abuses carried out by the personnel of these centers in the context of the human rights situation in Haiti. c) William G. O'Neill, expert witness proposed by the representatives, Director of the Conflict Prevention and Peace Forum, who gave an opinion on the “climate for human rights defenders in Haiti, as well as on the situation of the Haitian National Police for several years, particularly with regard to impunity.” 18 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 98, and Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay, supra note 9, para. 42. 19 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, paras. 69-76, and Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay, supra note 9, para. 16. 20 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala, supra note 19, para. 76, and Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay, supra note 9, para. 16. After their presentation had been required in the order of the President of July 20, 2011, in communications of August 8, 2011, the Commission desisted from presenting the expert opinion of Lizbeth Cullity, and the representatives did the same with regard to the expert opinion of Mary C. Cogar. 21 9