25 spent in Argentina and [of the] links [between] the security agencies of the two countries.” The expert witness added that the State, “in 2004, began the process of establishing a Truth and Justice Commission, […] one of the purposes of which is the elucidation of the cases of detained-disappeared and extrajudicial executions, and of victims of severe torture and forced exile.” Regarding the cases of Messrs. Goiburú Giménez, Mancuello Bareiro and Ramírez Villalba, he mentioned that the State has not clarified their disappearance or acknowledged its responsibility, “nor has it provided adequate reparation in pecuniary, psychological or social terms.” He stated that “one reason for this lack of action is [that] it is evident that the political party that accompanied General Stroessner during his long dictatorship, the Colorado party, is still in power.” He also stated that “the Truth and Justice Commission has met with significant obstacles, […] such as […] budget cuts in the funds allocated by the State, which has affected its investigative capacity.” Mr. Valenzuela Candia stated that no progress had been made in relation to the investigation into the facts and the punishment of those responsible. In addition, “the requests for the extradition of the main people responsible, such as former President Stroessner and the former Minister of the Interior, Sabino Augusto Montanaro, have been unsuccessful.” B) ASSESSMENT OF THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 57. In this case as in others,9 the Court accepts the probative value of the documents presented by the parties at the proper procedural opportunity, which were not contested or opposed, and whose authenticity was not questioned 58. Regarding the documents forwarded as helpful evidence, the Court incorporates them into the body of evidence in this case, in accordance with Article 45(2) of its Rules of Procedure (supra paras. 20 and 23). 59. Regarding the statements made by the next of kin of the alleged victims, the Court considers that these statements can help the Court determine the facts of the instant case. However, the Court notes that, as they are alleged victims or their next of kin and have a direct interest in this case, these statements must be assessed together with all the evidence in the case and not in isolation, applying the rules of sound criticism. The statements of the next of kin of the alleged victims are useful with regard to merits and reparations, to the extent that they provide further information on the consequences of the alleged violations perpetrated10 and, in this case in particular, owing to the declarations of the State regarding the statements of the next of kin of the alleged victims (supra para. 34). In the same terms and based on what has been decided above (supra paras. 25 to 30 and 34 to 38), the Court incorporates the statements of Gladis Ester Ríos de Mancuello, Ana Elizabeth Mancuello Bareiro, Rosa Mujica Giménez and María Magdalena Galeano Rotela into the body of evidence. 9 Cf. Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra note 8, para. 48; Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 1, para. 112, and Case of Baldeón García, supra note 6, para. 65. 10 Cf. Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra note 8, para. 52; Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 1, para. 113, and Case of Baldeón García, supra note 6, para. 66.