B. Admission of the evidence 24. In this case, as in others, the Court admits the probative value of those documents presented by the parties at the appropriate procedural opportunity that were not contested or opposed, and the authenticity of which was not questioned.22 25. The Court finds it pertinent to admit the opinions given by the expert witnesses by means of affidavits, insofar as they are in keeping with the purpose defined by the President in the order requiring them (supra para. 10), and they will be assessed in the corresponding chapter, together with other elements of the body of evidence.23 26. Regarding the statements of the alleged victims and witnesses as well as the expert opinions presented in the proceedings before the Commission, which were offered by the Commission and the representatives, the Court recalls that, provided there is no dispute, for reasons of procedural economy and in keeping with the provisions of Article 46(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the President decided that “the evidence tendered before the Commission will be incorporated into the case file, provided it was received in adversarial proceedings, unless the Court considers it essential to repeat it.” VII MERITS VII.1 FACTS 27. As indicated in this judgment (supra para. 16), the Court considered that, since the State had failed to exercise any procedural activity in this case, it had accepted the facts described in the application, together with the facts that may be considered complementary presented by the representatives. Based on the foregoing, in order to determine the scope of the violations, the Court will now refer to the context of the case, and to specific facts related to Mr. Fleury’s detention, the treatment to which he was subjected while deprived of liberty, the facts following his release, and the complaints filed regarding those facts. A. Context24 22 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, Merits, supra note 7, para. 140 and Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay, supra note 9, para. 21. 23 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997, and Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay, supra note 9, para. 27. 24 The information in this section comes mainly from the following sources: United Nations, Economic and Social Council. Report on the situation of human rights in Haiti presented by the Independent Expert, Adama Dieng, E/CN.4/2001/106, of 30 January 2001, paras. 27 to 30, 38, 74, 75, 77 and 79; United Nations, Security Council. Report of the Secretary-General on Haiti, S/2004/300, 16 April 2004, paras. 31, 32, 35, 36 and 41; Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH), S/2005/124, 25 February 2005, paras. 34 and 37; Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Annual Report, 2005, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.124, February 27, 2006, Chap. IV, Haiti, paras. 204, 237 and 238; Annual Report, 2004, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.122, February 23, 2005, Chap. II.C, para. 29, Chap. IV, Haiti, paras. 134, 135, 137, 142, 204; Annual Report, 2003, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.118, December 29, 2003, Chap. II.C, paras. 24 and 25, Chap. IV, Haiti, paras. 47 and 48; Annual Report, 2002, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.117, March 7, 2003, Chap. II.C, para. 27, and Chap. IV, Haiti, paras. 15, 21, 23, 39 and 41; Special report “Haiti: Failed Justice or the Rule of Law? Challenges ahead for Haiti and the International Community.” OEA/Ser/L/V/II.123, October 26, 2005, Chap. III.D.2, para. 151; Affidavit of Thomas M. Griffin dated August 9, 2011, paras. 4, 9 and 10 (evidence file, tome III, folios 1063 and 1066); 10