economic policy of the Argentine Government questioned. Furthermore, no compensation of any kind has been awarded to the presumed victims at the domestic level, as the State itself has indicated. Therefore, the Court finds that the reservation cited by the State is not related to the facts of the case, or to the human rights violations alleged. Based on the foregoing, the Court does not admit the preliminary objection filed by the State. IV COMPETENCE 50. The Inter-American Court is competent to hear this case pursuant to Article 62(3) of the American Convention on Human Rights, because Argentina has been a State Party to this instrument since September 5, 1984, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on that same date. Furthermore, Argentina has been a party to the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture since March 31, 1989. V EVIDENCE 51. Based on the provisions of Articles 46, 50, 57 and 58 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as on its case law relating to evidence and its assessment, the Court will examine and weigh the documentary probative elements submitted on different procedural occasions, the statements of the presumed victims and the opinions of the expert witnesses provided by affidavit and during the public hearing before the Court. To this end, the Court will abide by the principles of sound judicial discretion, within the applicable legal framework. 19 A. Documentary, testimonial and expert evidence 52. The Court received different documents submitted as evidence by the Inter-American Commission, the representative, and the State with their main briefs, the helpful evidence requested by the President of the Court, and the testimony and expert opinions provided by affidavit of the following persons: César Alberto Mendoza, Claudio David Núñez, Lucas Matías Mendoza, Saúl Cristian Roldán Cajal, Isolina del Carmen Herrera, Ana María del Valle Brito, Florinda Rosa Cajal, Romina Beatriz Muñoz, Jorgelina Amalia Díaz, Dora Noemí Mendoza, Yolanda Elizabeth Núñez, Omar Maximiliano Mendoza, Elizabeth Paola Mendoza, Yohana Elizabeth Roldán, Marilín Estefanía Videla and Marta Graciela Olguín, presented as presumed victims, and Laura Dolores Sobredo, Liliana Gimol Pinto, Alberto Bovino and Lawrence O. Gostin, expert witnesses. Also, during the public hearing, the Court received the testimony of Stella Maris Fernández, presumed victim, and Miguel Cillero Bruñol and Sofía Tiscornia, expert witnesses. 20 B. Admission of the evidence 53. In this case, as in others, the Court admits those documents forwarded by the parties at the proper procedural opportunity that were not contested or opposed, and the 19 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No.37, para. 76, and Case of the Massacre of Santo Domingo v. Colombia, para. 41. 20 The purposes of the testimony and the expert opinions can be found in the Order of August 1, 2012, issued by the President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in this case supra, first and fifth operative paragraphs. 20