13 concerning reparations, this Court observes that there is still a dispute with regard to their scope and to the results invoked by the State. Consequently, the Court will make the respective ruling. V EVIDENCE 29. Based on the provisions of Articles 46, 49 and 50 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as on its case law concerning evidence and its assessment,19 the Court will examine the probative elements submitted by the parties on different occasions during the proceedings, the testimony rendered by affidavit and received during the public hearing, as well as the helpful evidence requested by the Court. To this end, the Court will respect the principles of sound judicial discretion within the applicable legal framework.20 1. Documentary, testimonial and expert evidence 30. The Court received different documents presented as evidence by the Inter-American Commission, the representatives and the State together with their principal briefs (supra paras. 1, 5 and 6). In addition, it received statements made before notary public (affidavits) by the following victims and expert witnesses:21 1) Margarita Dolores Rivera de Rivera, victim proposed by the representatives, who testified on the alleged suffering caused to her and her family by not knowing the whereabouts of José Rubén Rivera, as well as on the alleged impunity in which the facts remain. 2) Agustín Antonio Rivera Gálvez, victim proposed by the representatives, who testified on the alleged suffering caused by the disappearance of José Rubén Rivera and the lack of justice in the case, as well as on the measures that the State could take to repair the violations that were alleged. 3) Reina Dionila Portillo de Silva, victim proposed by the representatives, who testified on the alleged suffering that the alleged forced disappearance of Ana Julia and Carmelina Mejía Ramírez and the lack of justice had caused to her, to the mother of the girls, and to the rest of the family. 4) Arcadia Ramírez Portillo, victim proposed by the representatives, who testified on the alleged suffering that the alleged forced disappearance of Ana Julia and Carmelina Mejía Ramírez and the lack of justice had caused to her and to the rest of the family. 19 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. 51; Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 5, 2011. Series C No. 228, para. 36, and Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2011. Series C No. 227, para. 26. 20 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 76; Case of Mejía Idrovo, supra note 19, para. 36, and Case of Chocrón Chocrón, supra note 19, para. 26. 21 On April 28, 2011, the Inter-American Commission advised that expert witness Rodolfo Mattarollo had stated that he was unable to provide his written expert opinion within the time frame that had been granted; thus it desisted from offering this opinion.