15 VI COMPETENCE 52. Guatemala is a State Party to the American Convention since May 25, 1978, and it recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on March 9, 1987. 53. The State ratified the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture on January 29, 1987, and the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment, and Eradication of Violence against Women on April 4, 1995. 54. In its final arguments, the State questioned the Court’s competence to hear on the alleged violation of Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the CIPST and Article 7.b) of the Convention of Belem do Pará. The Court considers, as it has declared in other occasions,27 that it is competent to adjudge on the obligations pending upon ratification of those instruments, such as the omissions derived from a lack of investigation. VII EVIDENCE 55. Based on the provisions of Articles 46 and 47 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as on the Court’s jurisprudence with regard to evidence and its appreciation28, the Court will examine and assess the documentary elements of evidence submitted by the parties on different procedural opportunities, as well as the statements presented by means of affidavits and received at the public hearing. To this end the Court will abide by the principles of competent analysis, within the corresponding regulatory framework.29 1. Testimonial and expert evidence 56. The following statements were offered before a notary public (affidavit) by the following individuals and expert witnesses: a) Amílcar Salazar Castillo. Alleged victim. Proposed by the representatives. Testified on the investigation of the facts of the massacre and the response of the authorities, the consequences of the alleged lack of justice for himself and other relatives of victims of the massacre, and the measures which the State should adopt to redress the alleged violations to his rights; b) Francisco Arreaga Alonzo. Alleged victim. Proposed by the representatives. Testified on the investigations of the facts of the massacres and the response of the authorities, the consequences of the alleged lack of justice for himself and other relatives of victims of the massacre, and the measures which the State should adopt to redress the alleged violations to his 27 Cf. Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 62, 159 and 162; Case of Baldeón García v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 162, and Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 266 and 378. 28 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76, para. 50; Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 21, and Case of Dacosta Cadogan v. Barbados. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 24, 2009. Series C No. 203, para. 32. 29 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para 76; Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, supra note 21, para. 36, and Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 26.