11 the State, the Commission and the representatives as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case as well as the additional documents submitted by the State27 and the representatives28 along with the evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case. 23. In relation to the statements rendered by affidavit of Guadalupe Jessica Salvador Chiriboga (supra para. 19(a)) and Susana Salvador Chiriboga, supra para. 19(b)), which were challenged by the State on the ground that “they make reference to emotional issues which deserve respect but are not relevant for the purposes of these proceedings […]”, the Court deems that said statements may contribute to the determination on the part of the Tribunal of the facts of the instant case, inasmuch as they coincide with the purpose defined in the Order of the President of September 17, 2007 (supra para. 18). Therefore, the Court shall assess them on the basis of sound judgment and taking into account the observations submitted by the State. Furthermore, this Tribunal notes that the testimonial statements must be assessed together with all the evidence in the case and not in isolation, since the victims or their next-of kin have a direct interest in the case.29 The statements made by the victims or their next-of- kin are useful as long as they provide more information on the consequences of the alleged violations committed. 24. In relation to the affidavit rendered by Mr. José Luis Paredes Sánchez (supra para. 19©), the State expressed, in the observations submitted, that the witness made “[…] a subjective and uninformed interpretation […]” and that “he cannot testify on behalf of third parties nor can he generalize the situation of the condemned people”. To such regard, the Court takes into account the observations submitted by the State and considers that such statement may contribute to the determination, on the part of the Tribunal, of the facts of the instant case inasmuch as it coincides with the purpose intended in the Order of the President of September 17, 2007 (supra para.18) Said statement is assessed on the basis of sound judgment.30 25. This Tribunal admits the affidavit rendered by Mrs. Margarita Beatriz Rafiha El Fil Guerra, (supra para. 19(d)) inasmuch as it coincides with the purpose intended by the President in its Order of September 17, 2007 (supra note 18) and shall assess it within the context of the body of evidence. 26. Regarding the affidavit rendered by the expert witness Mr. Edmundo Gutiérrez (supra, para. 19(e)), in the observations, the State noted that “[h]e poses a too general reparations and costs, V V, p. 832 and 833); f) document named “assessment on the serviced lands, parish of Iñaquito ” (record of the preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, V V, p. 834 to 836); g) different journalistic publications regarding the case, that the State called "Circumstantial Evidence” (record of preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs, V V. p. 838 to 842); and h) report on proceedings finished as from the agreement of March 14, 2002 (record of preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, V . V, p. 816 to 818). 27 Namely: a) General Rules of Public Procurement Act, Official Registry, Supplement 622 of July 19, 2002; b) General Rules of Public Procurement Act N° 2392 of April 29, 1991; c) certified copy of the municipal ordinance N° 2157 of December 10, 1981; e) certified copy of municipal ordinance N° 2776 of May 28, 1990; f) certified copy of municipal ordinance N° 2816 of October 15, 1990, and g) information of the measures adopted by the Ninth Trial Court on Civil matters in and for the city of Pichincha (record of evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case furnished by the State, Volume II, p. 4780 to 4842 and Volume III, p. 7514 to 7571). 28 Namely: A receipt of the payment made on 2008 for property and non-serviced building lot taxes and documents referred to as “Quito Plan 1980” related to Ordinance N° 2092 of January 26, 1981 (record of evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case furnished by the representatives, Volume II, p. 7166). 29 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Perú. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C Nº 33, para. 33; and Case of Albán Cornejo et al., supra note 21, para. 33; and Case of the Saramaka People, supra note 21, para. 68. 30 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al); supra note 21, para. 70; and Case of Albán Cornejo et al., supra note 21, para. 34; and Case of the Saramaka People, supra note 21, para. 63.