19 VI EVIDENCE 82. Based on the provisions of Articles 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure, and also on the Court’s jurisprudence regarding evidence and its assessment,46 the Court will examine and evaluate the documentary probative elements forwarded by the parties at different procedural occasions, as well as the testimony rendered by affidavit and at the public hearing. To this end, the Court will abide by the principles of sound judicial discretion, within the corresponding normative framework.47 1. Testimonial evidence and expert opinions 83. The written statements of the following witnesses and expert witnesses were received: a) Luis Alberto Bosio. Witness proposed by the Commission. He testified, inter alia, about “the forensic medicine investigations, and the medical forensic anthropology appraisals he had made of some of the osseous remains found in the so-called ‘Cotton Field’ between November 6 and 7, 2001; the conclusions he reached, and the compatibility of the previous examination of the same remains with the relevant applicable international standards.” b) Mercedes Doretti. Witness proposed by the Commission. She testified, inter alia, about “the investigations carried out by the EAAF [Argentine Forensic Anthropology Team] in relation to the murders of women and girls committed in the State of Chihuahua, Mexico; the procedure for identifying victims of such crimes; the conduct and the level of collaboration of the authorities with these investigations, and the conclusions reached by the EAAF based on their investigations.” c) Carlos Castresana Fernández. “[M]ember of the team of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) that, in 2003, supervised the domestic investigations into the murders of women and girls in Ciudad Juárez, including the Cotton Field cases.” Expert witness proposed by the Commission. He testified, inter alia, about “due diligence in the investigation procedures for crimes of this nature, and the investigations conducted in the Cotton Field cases in light of the relevant applicable international standards.” d) Servando Pineda Jaimes. “Director of the Social Science Faculty of the Universidad Autónoma de Ciudad Juárez.” Expert witness proposed by 46 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 Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”) v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2009. Series C No. 198, para. 22, and Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 6, 2009. Series C No. 199, para. 55. 47 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala, supra note 46, para. 76; Case of Reverón Trujillo v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 30, 2009. Series C No. 197, para. 26, and Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil, supra note 46, para. 55.