para. 7 and 25), the Court admits such statements insofar as they are in accordance with the object stated by the party that offered them and that was defined by the Court in the order for them to be received. With respect to the aforementioned statements and the testimony of María Córdula Mora Jacanamijoy and Jorge Franclin Cuarán Muchavisoy, the Court also deems it pertinent to point out that, in general, the statements of the next of kin of the victims are especially useful regarding reparations, insofar as they can provide pertinent information regarding the harmful consequences of the violations committed.17 Nevertheless, the Court refers to its statement in previous cases, that it will assess their content within the context of the body of evidence and applying the rules of competent analysis.18 31. As regards the expert opinion of Ana C. Deutsch, the Court takes into account the arguments of the parties regarding the expert report, accepts it and will assess it within the context of the body of evidence in the instant case. 32. With respect to the documents offered as evidence to facilitate adjudication, sent by the representatives of the next of kin of the victims (supra para. 23) and by the State (supra para. 24), the Court deems them useful within the context of the body of evidence and includes them in it, pursuant to the provisions of Article 44(1) of the Rules of Procedure. It also accepts the videotapes submitted by Jorge Franclin Cuarán Muchavisoy as evidence to facilitate adjudication (supra para. 24). 33. As regards the documents submitted on May 13, 2002 by the representatives of the next of kin together with evidence to facilitate adjudication and which were not explicitly requested as evidence (supra para. 23), this Court deems them useful insofar as they can inform the Court of the specific ties of Yaneida Violeta Cerón Vargas with the family of Julio Milciades Cerón Gómez and the relationship between Hernán Lizcano Jacanamijoy e Inés Sigindioy Narváez, who were living together, and therefore it includes them in the body of evidence. 34. Finally, it is convenient to state that the body of evidence in a case is unique and indivisible, and is constituted by the evidence submitted during all stages of the proceedings,19 and thus the evidence supplied by the parties during the preliminary objections and merits stages are also part of the probatory material that will be considered during the instant stage. VI PROVEN FACTS 35. With the aim of establishing the appropriate reparations in this case, the Court will base its ruling on what was set forth in the judgment on the merits. During the instant stage of the proceedings, the parties have also contributed new probatory elements to the file for purposes of establishing the aforementioned reparation measures. The Court has examined those elements and the arguments of the parties, and declares that the following facts have been proven: 17 Cf. El Caracazo Case. Reparations, supra note 2, para. 59; Trujillo Oroza Case. Reparations, supra note 2, para. 52; and Bámaca Velásquez Case. Reparations, supra note 2, para. 27. 18 Cf. El Caracazo Case. Reparations, supra note 2, para. 60; Hilaire, Constantine, Benjamin et al. Case, supra note 4, para. 69; and Trujillo Oroza Case. Reparations, supra note 2, para. 37. 19 Cf. El Caracazo Case. Reparations, supra note 2, para. 62; Trujillo Oroza Case. Reparations, supra note 2, para. 47; and Bámaca Velásquez Case. Reparations supra note 2, para. 22.