10 State was asked to submit along with its answer to the application and comments on the representatives’ brief on pleadings, motions and evidence, complete and legible copies of any judicial or administrative investigation and any other proceedings of any nature initiated at the domestic level in connection with the facts of the instant case, as well as information about their actual status, if applicable. Although this request has been reiterated three times subsequently16, the said information was not submitted by the State. Moreover, the State did not submit the last documentation and information requested for those same effects (supra para. 7). The Court reminds that the parties must submit to the Tribunal the evidence requested, so that it may count on the greater evidentiary elements possible in order to have a thorough knowledge of the facts and ground its decisions. 34. The witnesses proposed by the Commission, namely Vanner Omar Olmedo Macías, Teresa María Susana Cedeño Paz and Alicia Marlene Rodríguez Villegas, testified about “the facts which took place in the early morning hours of March 6, 1993, when [allegedly] agents of the Ecuadorian security forces [would have] violently entered his [or her] house and [would have] executed his father [or her partner, depending on the case] in front of his [or her] family”. 35. On the grounds of arguments similar to those put forward by the Commission concerning the testimony of Ms. Jessica Marlene Baque Rodríguez (supra para. 25), the representatives submitted a testimony of Mr. Ubaldo Aquilino Angulo Plaza, who was allegedly living in front of Mr. Segundo Olmedo Caicedo Cobeña’s house and who, “on the day of the events, observed from his home how military officers brought [him] out alive and boarded him on an Army truck, of which they subsequently took him out and carried [him] in the house again in which they [allegedly] murdered him”. Similarly, the Commission and the State were informed of the possibility to present any comments they would deem relevant. Said comments were not submitted. 36. Furthermore, the affidavit of Mr. Ernesto Teófilo López Freire, an expert witness proposed by the representatives, was submitted. He testified on Ecuadorian law concerning the powers of the Executive to decree states of emergency. B) ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE 37. In the instant case as in others17, pursuant to Articles 45(1) and 45(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court admits and recognizes the evidentiary value of the documents and clarifications submitted by the parties at the appropriate procedural stage or as evidence to facilitate the adjudication of the case, which have neither been disputed nor objected, and the authenticity of which has not been questioned. 38. Regarding the press documents submitted by the parties, the State in its answer to the application declared that “the information [presented therein] is unclear and contradictory[.] Therefore, in view of the doubts with regard to the truthfulness of the facts related, they cannot be considered as proven facts, since these press reports cannot even confirm as between themselves the versions related.” The State added that the Court might “ground its judgments on indirect evidence […] when [these] are coherent, [they] confirm [the facts] as between themselves and make it possible to draw strong conclusions about the facts considered”. The State reasserted this argument during the public hearing. However, in the said hearing the State alleged, on the grounds of press reports, that the fact that arms have been found in the houses of the alleged victims was 16 Through notes of this Registry dated February 9, March 19 and April 19, 2007. Cf. Case of Loayza-Tamayo Reparations. Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 42, para. 53, See also Case of Bueno Alves, supra note 8, para. 38; and Case of the Rochela Massacre, supra note 7, para. 59. 17