88 avoided rigid determination of the quantum of evidence necessary to substantiate a decision.8 16. These principles apply to the merits of this matter and equally so to the reparations stage, for which reason, in accordance with said principles, the Court will now examine and assess the evidence filed in the instant case, following the rules of competent analysis and within the applicable legal framework. a) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 17. As appendices to the brief on reparations, the representatives of the victims filed copies of 383 documents included in 26 appendices (supra 5)9. 18. In its observations on reparations on May 8, 2001, the Commission endorsed the evidence submitted by the representatives of the victims. The State did not submit any evidence in its brief with observations on the reparations. 19. On January 10 and 18, 2002, the State filed two documents in compliance with a request made by the Court as a measure to facilitate adjudication of the case, pursuant to Article 44 of its Rules of Procedure.10 * * * b) TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE 20. At the public hearing on November 28 and 29, 2001, the Court heard the testimony of the witnesses offered by the representatives of the victims and the Inter-American Commission, summarized below in the order it was rendered: a) Testimony of Jennifer Harbury, attorney, a United States citizen, and the widow of Efraín Bámaca Velásquez Efraín Bámaca Velásquez was an intelligent person, with an interest in learning, humble and kind to his people. Due to his Mayan principles, he was always concerned about providing financial support to his family at all times. He talked, for Morales et al. Case, Reparations, supra note 5, para. 51; Ivcher Bronstein Case, supra note 6, para. 69; “The Last Temptation of Christ Case” (Olmedo Bustos et al.), supra note 6, para. 54; Baena Ricardo et al. Case, supra note 6, para. 70 and 72; Case of the Constitutional Court, supra note 6, para. 49; Bámaca Velásquez Case, supra note 6, para. 100; Cantoral Benavides Case. August 18, 2000 Judgment. C Series No. 69, para. 52; Durand and Ugarte Case. August 16, 2000 Judgment. C Series No. 68, para. 53-56; Villagrán Morales et al. Case. November 19, 1999 Judgment. C Series No. 63, para. 71; Castillo Páez Case, Reparations, supra note 6, para. 40; Loayza Tamayo Case, Reparations, supra note 6, para. 57; and Paniagua Morales et al. Case, supra note 6, para. 76. 8 See Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, para. 60. 9 See File “Appendices with evidence submitted by the representatives of the victims together with the brief on Reparations”, at the Secretariat of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Volume I, fs. 1171; and file “invoices pertaining to air travel expenses, hotel expenses, land transportation expenses, gasoline, car rental, phone call charges, faxes, photocopies, notary public services, courier, authentications and translations, and payment for legal services under domestic jurisdiction”, at the Secretariat of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Volume II, fs. 172-479. 10 See Legal provisions on economic advantages for workers of the public and private sector sent by the State and table on reference exchange rates for the year 2001, Volume II of the file on Reparations at the Secretariat of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, fs. 253-269 and 276.