assess the documental evidentiary elements submitted by the parties in the various procedural opportunities, as well as the declarations of the alleged victims, the testimonies, the expert reports rendered by sworn statement before a notary public and in the public hearing before the Court, as well as the evidence to facilitate adjudication requested by the Court. Accordingly, the Court will adhere to the principles of sound judicial discretion, within the appropriate normative framework.14 1. Documentary, testimonial, and expert evidence 16. The Court received the sworn statement rendered before a notary public (affidávit) of three expert witnesses and one witness: a) Humberto Nogueira Alcalá, expert witness proposed by the Commission, University Professor, who rendered an expert report on: i) the permissible limits and scope of political rights in light of the Inter-American and international standards and ii) “the compatibility of the administrative proceeding exercised by the Comptroller General of the Republic of Venezuela to impose the disqualification from holding public office in light of the rights enshrined in the American Convention”; b) Jorge Carpizo, expert witness proposed by the representatives, Professor of the Postgraduate Division of the Law School of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma of México, who rendered his expert report on: i) the standards of Constitutional Comparative Law, particularly in Latin America, in relation to the political rights and acceptable restrictions that may be imposed; ii) the grounds, proceedings, and content of the sanctions, and iii) the importance of the full respect for political rights in a democracy; c) Yadira Espinoza Moreno, expert proposed by the State, former General Technical Director of the Comptroller General of the Republic, who declared on: i) “the work carried out by the State of Venezuela against corruption," and ii) “the normative advances it has effectuated" in this regard, and d) Marielba Jaua Milano, witness proposed by the State, General Director of State and Municipal Oversight of the Comptroller General of the Republic, whom declared on: i) “the proceedings of investigative power and the determination of responsibility carried out by the Comptroller General of the Republic against Mr. López Mendoza” and ii) “the rights and guarantees that were [allegedly] taken into account during said proceedings." 17. In regard to the evidence rendered during the public hearing, the Court heard the statements of the alleged victim, a witness, and four experts: a) Leopoldo López Mendoza, alleged victim proposed by the Commission, who declared on: i) "the disqualification which he underwent that prevented him from holding public office"; ii) “the [alleged] conditions for which he was prevented from participating in the 2008 regional elections," and iii) “[t]he [alleged] proceeding he underwent to contest the disqualification"; V. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2011. Series C No. 227, para. 26. 14 Cf. Case of “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al) V. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 76; Case of Vera Vera et al., supra note 13, para. 19, and Case of Chocrón Chocrón, supra note 13, para. 26. 10