123. As regards the supposed statements of Carmen Méndez (undated), of Andrea Alezy on April 1, 2000, and of Bersson Gelin, which appears in the document entitled “Declaración de Bers[s]on Geli[n], traducción al español de la parte en inglés de la declaración tomada por el señor Michael Granne el 12 de julio de 2001” [Statement of Bers[s]on Geli[n], translation into Spanish of the part in English of the statement taken by Michael Granne on July 12, 2001], these are unsigned, so that the Court has insufficient evidence to determine with certainty in each case who made the statements that appear in these documents. With regard to the supposed statement of Antonio Sensión of May 8, 2000, and the four supposed “sworn statements” that are in annex 38 of the Merits report, 85 the Court has verified that, although these documents bear the signature of the deponent and of witnesses, each document records that the statements were made before notary public, but they are not signed or authenticated by the latter. In view of its previous considerations, and taking into account the observations of the State, the Court finds that it is unable to admit this documentation. 86 124. In addition, with regard to the statements of: Rafaelito Pérez Charles of January 10, 2001; Benito Tide of January 10, 2001; 87 Antonio Sensión of January 11, 2001, and March 27, 2007; Ana Lidia Sensión of March 27, 2007; Willian Medina Ferreras of April 1, 2000; Jeanty Fils-Aimé of April 1, 2000; Bersson Gelin of April 1, 2000; Marlene Mesidor of January 11, 2001; Lilia Jean Pierre of January 13, 2001; Janise Midi of January 13, 2001, and Victor Jean of January 11, 2001, the Court considers that the statements of the presumed victims constitute documentary evidence and do not call for the formalities of affidavits or statements made before a judicial authority; furthermore they are not sworn statements. In addition transcripts were presented of the handwritten statements of Willian Medina Ferreras, Jeanty Fils-Aimé, Bersson Gelin and Marlene Mesidor. Based on the State’s observations, and since those documents do not require the formalities of domestic law, the Court admits the said statements as documentary evidence. 125. Objections to a list of deported persons who lived in the Dominican Republic presented by the Commission in annex 21 of the Merits report and attached to the Commission’s Report on the Situation of Human Rights in the Dominican Republic of October 7, 1999. The State alleged that the first document “lacks any probative value because only the General Directorate of Immigration [(hereinafter also “the DGM”] has legal competence to present official statistics in this regard.” In addition, it indicated that the Inter-American Commission’s report on the situation of human rights in the Dominican Republic of October 7, 1999, cited by the Commission and the representatives, “refers to presumed acts and facts that would have taken place before the acceptances of the Court’s contentious jurisdiction, so that [the Court] lacks temporal competence to examine them, or even to analyze them in the elaboration of the supposed historical context to this case.” In addition, the State “indicate[d] that, in this report, the Inter-American Commission recognized that ‘the problems that affect the full observance of rights are not the result of a State policy aimed at violating those rights.’” The Dominican Republic’s arguments concerning the first document are not related to its admissibility as evidence, but rather to its probative value. As to the argument that the Inter-American Commission’s report of October 7, 1999, refers to acts that occurred prior to the Court’s competence, in its case law, the Court has considered historical background material that 85 Statements allegedly provided by Carmen Méndez, María Esthel Matos Medina, Adolfo Encarnación, Saint Foir José Louis and Eristen González González. 86 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, paras. 50 and 55. 87 Although Benito Tide’s statement is admissible, the Court notes that it refers to facts that it will not analyze (supra para. 44). 37