Claudia María Carro Maklouf and Victor Hugo Sanabria León; and from the expert witnesses: Andrea Mesén Fainardi, Antonio Marlasca López, Alicia Neuburger, Maureen Condic, Martha Garza and Paul Hunt. As to the evidence provided at the public hearing, the Court heard the testimony of the presumed victims Miguel Mejías and Ileana Henchoz, and of the expert witnesses Fernando Zegers-Hochschild, Anthony Caruso, Paola Bergallo and Marco Gerardo Monroy Cabra. 47 44. Representative Molina informed the Court that he had filed an application for amparo “against the physicians treating four of the [presumed] victims, because [these physicians had] allege[d], in two of these cases, that the former wives of [his] clients had expressly forbidden” them to provide representative Molina with “a copy of the medical records that led to the infertility consultations.” In this regard, the representative indicated that this situation left him “at a clear disadvantage” and, for that reason, he had resorted to “domestic legal channels to try to gain access to the information required in order to submit it as evidence” before the Court. The representative indicated that his application had been denied. He stated that this was “a clear procedural violation and breach of the good faith that should prevail in any litigation, because it had harmed the “body of evidence,” in the understanding that, for the purposes of these proceedings, the medical records contain important information that, although it can be substituted with other types of evidence, cannot be concealed if one of the parties has had access to it, because they are obliged to share it.” 45. The representative requested “additional time” to refer to “and, as part of the brief with pleadings, motions and evidence, make any observation on the evidence presented by Ana Cristina Castillo León and Claudia Carro Maklouf, former wives of Enrique Acuña Cartín and Víctor Hugo Sanabria León,” inasmuch as, “if they had furnished the relevant medical records, they would be using this evidence in clear violation of the principle of “community of evidence” and “of good faith in litigation.” The representative asked the Court “to consider the possibility of requesting the State, through the appropriate channels, to require Drs. Gerardo Escalante López and Delia María Ribas Valdéz” to “hand over a copy of the medical records of the said individuals and of María del Socorro Calderón Porras and Carlos Vargas Solórzano, to whom for no reason, as of this date, a copy of the medical file was provided.” Accordingly, the President took note of these requests and indicated that, if the Court determined that this evidence would be required in order to decide on aspects concerning the purpose of this case, it would be requested at the appropriate time. The Court considers that the said information is not essential to decide this case. B) Admission of the evidence B.1) Admission of documentary evidence 46. In this case, as in others, the Court grants probative value to those documents that were forwarded at the appropriate time by the parties and the Commission, and that were not disputed or challenged, and the authenticity of which was not questioned. 48 The documents requested by the Court as helpful evidence (supra para. 11) are incorporated into the body of evidence, in application of the provisions of Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure. 47 The purpose of all these statements is established in the Order of the President of the Court of August 6, 2012. Available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/artavia_06_08_12.pdf. In a communication of August 9, 2012, the Commission withdrew the statement of Florencia Luna. 48 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 140, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, para. 35.