58 192. Similarly, in application of that stated in Article 44(3) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court includes in the body of evidence the documents presented by the State (supra paras. 108 and 112), taking into consideration the observations presented by the intervener and the Commission (supra paras. 110, 113, 115, and 116), as well as part of the documentation presented by the common intervener (supra paras. 111 and 127), and assesses them within the totality of the body of evidence, applying the rules of competent analysis. 193. Likewise, in application of that stated in Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court includes in the body of evidence of the present case Supreme Decree No. 065-2001-PCM of July 4, 2001, Decree Law Nº 25418 of April 6, 1992, and the Supreme Ruling No. 438-2001-PCM of September 6, 2001, since they are useful for the present case. 194. The Court states that the testimonies offered before notary public (affidavits) of Messrs. Gustavo Adolfo Chávez Hun, Mercedes Villaverde, and Rosario Falconí Alvarado, which were proposed by the intervener and requested through Ruling of May 24, 2006 (supra para. 65), were not forwarded to the Court without offering any explanation in this regard. 195. The Tribunal will not assess the documentation presented by the Commission on October 20, 2006 (supra para. 117), nor part of the documentation presented by the common intervener on October 4th and November 14th and 20th, 2006 (supra paras. 111 and 127), since its time-barred presentation does not obey to any of the conditions contemplated in Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure. Assessment of the Testimonial and Expert Evidence 196. The Tribunal admits and grants the corresponding evidentiary value to the testimonies of Gaby Balcázar Medina, Julia Peña Castillo, Luis Angel Pérez Zapata, Lastenia Eugenia Caballero Mejía, and Omar Antonio Pimentel Calle, as well as to the expert reports of Messrs. Nizam Peerwani and Thomas Wenzel, which were not objected or contested. This Tribunal considers that the testimonies of Gaby Balcázar Medina, Julia Peña Castillo, Luis Angel Pérez Zapata, and Lastenia Eugenia Caballero Mejía that result useful in the present case, cannot be assessed in an isolated manner since they are alleged victims and they have a direct interest in the case, on the contrary they must be assessed within the totality of the evidence in the proceedings.20 VIII PROVEN FACTS 197. Pursuant to the partial acknowledgment of international responsibility made by the State (supra paras. 129 through 159), according to that stated in paragraphs 164 through 169 of the present Judgment, and according to the body of evidence of the present case, the Court considers that the following facts have been proven: Background and juridical context 20 Cfr. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al., supra note 15, para. 78; Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 5, para. 59; and Case of Claude Reyes et al., supra note 19, para. 56.