10 Evaluation of the Documentary Evidence 18. In this case, as in others,12 the Tribunal recognizes the evidentiary value of the documents submitted by the parties at the appropriate procedural stage which have neither been contested nor challenged, and whose authenticity was not put into doubt. 19. With respect to the documents presented by the State during the public hearing, those sent by the State in order to facilitate adjudication of the case, and the documents presented by the common intervener and the State, as attachments to their written closing arguments, the Tribunal incorporates these into the body of evidence, pursuant to Article 45 of the Rules of Procedure. 20. The State did not submit the documents and information requested with respect to the investigative steps taken in response to the alleged threats reported to the authorities by members of the García Prieto Giralt family; nor did it submit information corresponding to the investigation subsequent to June 19, 2002 or the alleged investigation into the events which occurred at "El Cuco" beach. The Court observes that the parties, and, in this case, the State, must provide the evidence requested by the Court and facilitate the delivery of all probative elements, such that the Tribunal may have the most evidentiary elements necessary to understand the facts of the case and rule upon them. 21. With respect to the testimony rendered by Alina Isabel Arce (supra para. 16(f)) and María Julia Hernández (supra para. 16(g)) before a notary public, this Tribunal admits their affidavits to the extent they conform with the object of testimony indicated in the Order of the President of December 14, 2006 (supra note 12), and will take them into consideration together with the remainder of the body of evidence. 22. The State objected to the testimony rendered by José Mauricio García Prieto Hirlemann (supra para. 16(a)), María de los Ángeles García Prieto de Charur (supra para. 16(c)), Ile del Carmen García Prieto Taghioff (supra para. 16(d)) and Lourdes García Prieto de Patuzzo (supra para. 16(e)) before a notary public, on the grounds that their respective depositions were "full of sensitivities, which impeded their impartiality.” The Court finds that these depositions may contribute to the Court’s determination of the facts of the present case, to the extent they conform to the object of testimony defined in the Order of the President of December 14, 2006 (supra para. 12). As a result, the Court will evaluate them applying the rules of competent analysis and taking into account the State's observations. Likewise, this Tribunal notes that because these depositions have been provided by alleged victims or their next of kin who have a direct interest in the case, they cannot be evaluated in isolation, but rather, within the whole of the body of evidence presented during the proceedings.13 The depositions of the alleged victims or their next of kin are 12 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140; Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz, supra note 10, para. 41; Case of Zambrano Vélez et al. supra note 10, para. 32; and Case of Escué Zapata, supra note 10, para. 25. 13 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. 70; Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz,