25. The State contested the documentary evidence presented by the representatives at the Court’s request concerning the identity of each of Marco Bienvenido Palma Mendoza’s next of kin and their relationship to him (supra para. 9). It indicated that this information should have been presented at the opportune procedural moment, and that the fact that this did not occur - meaning that “information has been introduced into the body of evidence that will influence the result of the proceedings – impairs irreparably the right of the State as a party to the proceedings.” It added that, by accepting this evidence, the Court “also violates the right of the parties to an impartial judge.” The Court considers that the presentation of the evidence was not time-barred, because it was provided by the representatives at the Court’s request in application of Article 58 of its Rules of Procedure. The use of the powers conferred by that article in no way implies partiality or entails a prior determination of the presumed victims. It is in this Judgment that the Court makes this determination. The Court clarifies that, when requesting the respective documentation, it indicated that it did so, not in relation to “victims” or “presumed victims,” but rather in relation to those persons who, “as alleged by the representatives, are presumed victims or beneficiaries in the case.” Moreover, a “right of the State as party to the proceedings” was not impaired because, as is clear from the above, it had the opportunity to refer to the respective documents. It should be noted, lastly, that the State did not dispute the authenticity of the said documents. Accordingly, the Court considers the State’s observations inadmissible. 26. Consequently, with regard to the documentation requested by this Court as useful evidence (supra paras. 9 and 10) under Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure, it is incorporated into the body of evidence in keeping with the rules of sound judicial discretion. 3. Admission of the statements of the presumed victims and the expert opinion 27. Regarding the statements of the presumed victims and the expert opinion provided during the public hearing and by affidavit, the Court considers them pertinent to the extent that they are in keeping with the purpose defined by the President of the Court in his Order requiring them (supra para. 7). Moreover, in keeping with the Court’s case law, the statements of the presumed victims cannot be assessed in isolation, but must be examined together with the rest of the evidence in the proceedings, because they are useful insofar as they can provide further information on the alleged violations and their consequences. 16 VI FACTS 28. The Court recalls that, under Article 41(3) of the Rules of Procedure, it may consider accepted the facts which have not been expressly denied and the claims that have not been expressly contested. The facts described in paragraphs 29 to 62 have been proved in accordance with the evidence provided to the Court, and they were not contested by the State. 1. Deprivation of liberty and subsequent death of Mr. Palma Mendoza 16 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 43, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, para. 43. 9