95 they are not documents with official data. Therefore, within the context of the instant case, this Court admits into evidence, in accordance with the powers vested in this Court by Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure, the life expectancy tables submitted in the Paniagua Morales et al. and Villagrán Morales et al. cases, both against Guatemala, to conduct the respective calculations, as well as the criteria given in those cases regarding the issue of life expectancy.14 24. Regarding the tables on exchange rates from November, 2000 to February, 2001, filed as appendices by the representatives of the victims, the Court admits them into evidence under the terms stated therein. 25. The videotape “Dirty Secrets: Jennifer, Everardo, and the CIA in Guatemala” submitted by the representatives of the victims is admitted into evidence insofar as it complements the evidence contributed in the instant case. 26. In the instant case, as in others, the Court recognizes the evidentiary value of the documents filed by the parties at the appropriate procedural times or as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case that were neither disputed nor objected, when their authenticity was not questioned. 27. Regarding testimony rendered in the instant case, the Court evaluates such testimony insofar as it is in accordance with the purpose of the proposed examination. In this regard, the Court deems that statements by next of kin and persons having a direct interest in this case cannot be assessed in an isolated manner but rather within the body of evidence of the proceedings. In connection with reparations, testimony of next of kin is useful insofar as it may provide further information on the consequences of the violations committed.15 28. Regarding the expert opinion given by Ana Deutsch, this Court assesses it in accordance with the proposed purpose of the report. V PROVEN FACTS 29. With the aim of determining the appropriate measures of reparation in the instant case, the Court will base itself on the facts admitted as proven in the November 25, 2000 Judgment. During the current stage of the proceedings, the parties have also contributed new evidence with the aim of proving the existence of supplementary facts that are relevant to the aforementioned measures. The Court has examined the evidence and the respective arguments of the parties on the declarations and, as a result of this examination, declares that the following facts have been proven. A) With respect to Efraín Bámaca Velásquez: a) that Efraín Bámaca Velásquez was born on June 18, 1957,16 and he was a commander of the URNG at the time of the events;17 14 See Villagrán Morales et al. Case, Reparations, supra note 5, para. 81; and Paniagua Morales et al. Case, Reparations, supra note 5, para. 68. 15 See Villagrán Morales et al. Case, Reparations, supra note 5, para. 55; and Paniagua Morales et al. Case, Reparations, supra note 5, para. 70. 16 See Bámaca Velásquez Case, supra note 6, para. 121, subparagraph a).