8 35. Regarding the facts, the dispute persists concerning the treatment received by the alleged victims before their murder, the circumstances and authorship of the murder, and also the State’s actions after 2001 in relation to the investigation into the events. There are also discrepancies with respect to the events which constitute a violation of Article 5 to the detriment of certain next of kin of the executed individuals. Although the State first admitted the affliction suffered by these individuals, it later stated that they had not been subject to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (supra paras. 27 and 28). 36. Likewise, the Court observes that disagreement exists with regard to whether reparations should be granted, as well as the method of reparation and the possible beneficiaries. 37. In view of the foregoing and as mentioned above, the Court will determine the facts that it considers proved from the body of evidence and, based on this and the facts acknowledged by the State, the corresponding juridical consequences. VI EVIDENCE 38. Based on the provisions of Articles 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure, and also on the Court’s case law regarding evidence and its assessment, the Court will proceed to examine and assess the documentary probative elements forwarded by the Commission, the representatives and the State at different procedural opportunities or as helpful evidence requested by the President and the Court, as well as the testimonial statements and opinion provided by sworn written statement, written statement, or in the public hearing before the Court. To this end, the Court will abide by the principles of sound criticism, within the corresponding legal framework. 8 A) DOCUMENTARY, TESTIMONIAL AND EXPERT EVIDENCE 39. Regarding the documentary evidence, the three testimonial statements, one expert opinion given in a sworn written statement, and one written statement of the following persons were presented: (a) Vanessa Cantoral-Contreras, witness proposed by the Inter-American Commission; daughter of Saúl Cantoral-Huamaní. She testified about the alleged kidnapping and threats endured by her father prior to his death and provided information on how she learned of the death of her father and of the suffering when she found out from the media that his body had been thrown onto the sand with a gunshot wound in his forehead. She also testified about the repercussions of the death of her father, who some newspapers had referred to as a terrorist; and about the family’s search for justice, and her mother’s fear that something could happen to her family. (b) Amelia Beatriz Santa Cruz-Portacarrero, widow of García, witness proposed by the Inter-American Commission; mother of Consuelo García-Santa Cruz. She testified how she and her family were affected by the death of her daughter; 8 Cf. Case of Bueno-Alves v. Argentina. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 164, para. 36; Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 55, and Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 59.