15 77. In this regard, the Court has established that the designation of a legal representative in the proceedings before the Court is a right rather than an obligation of the alleged victims.5 Also, in relation to the participation of the victims and their next of kin, the Court has indicated that their representatives exercise the representation of those who have granted a valid power of attorney to this end and, that, in the case of those who lack this representation, it is assumed by the InterAmerican Commission, which must safeguard their interests and ensure that they are represented effectively at the different procedural stages before the Court, “as guarantor of the public interest under the American Convention on Human Rights to ensure that they have the benefit of legal representation” (Article 33(3) of the Rules of Procedure). This is the Court’s understanding; consequently, its assessments and decisions concerning merits and possible reparations will not depend on the organization, institution or persons who exercise the specific representations, in compliance with its inherent functions as an international human rights tribunal and in application of the pro persona principle.6 78. Based on the foregoing, the Court rejects the third preliminary objection. * * * 79. Having rejected the three preliminary objections filed by the State, the Court will proceed to examine the merits of the case. VI EVIDENCE 80. 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,7 the Court will proceed to examine and assess the probative elements forwarded by the common intervenors, the Commission, and the State at different procedural opportunities or as helpful evidence that they were requested to provide on the instructions of the President. To this end, the Court will observe the principles of sound criticism, within the corresponding legal framework.8 A) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 81. The parties forwarded certain testimonial and expert statements called for in the President’s order of May 17, 2006 (supra para. 44). The Court will summarize these statements below: 5 Cf. Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al., supra note 3, para. 143, and Case of Yatama. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 127, para. 86. 6 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 59. 7 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. , supra note 3, paras. 66 to 69; Case of Servellón García et al. . Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, paras. 32 to 35, and Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al., supra note 3, paras. 183 to 185. 8 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al.. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, para. 55