7 State must secure, in compliance with the principle of good faith governing the execution of treaty obligations,10 that no obstacles hinder the collection of evidence. 15. As regards the evidence rendered during the public hearing, the Court heard the testimonies of the following persons:11 a) Juan Carlos Apitz Barbera, alleged victim and witness proposed by the Commission and the representative. He testified, inter alia, about the events surrounding his removal as First Court Judge, the removal process, the domestic resources used in the process, and the way in which these resources affected his physical and mental health and his social and family relations. b) Perkins Rocha Contreras, alleged victim and witness proposed by the Commission and the representative. He testified, inter alia, about the events surrounding his removal as First Court Judge, the removal process, the domestic recourses used in the process, and the way in which these facts allegedly affected his physical and mental health and his social and family relations. c) Servio Tulio León Briceño, Inspector General of Courts at the time of the events in the instant case. Witness proposed by the State. He testified, inter alia, about the legal nature of the Inspectoría General de Tribunales [Inspectorate General of Courts] and the way in which the disciplinary proceedings were instituted against the alleged victims. d) Damián Adolfo Nieto Carrillo, member of the Comisión de Funcionamiento y Reestructuración del Sistema Judicial [Commission for Operating and Restructuring the Judicial System]. Informative deponent proposed by the State. He testified, inter alia, about the judicial disciplinary system in force in Venezuela and the measures adopted to secure the independence of the Judiciary. 2. Evidence assessment 16. In the instant case, as in others,12 the Court admits and recognizes the evidentiary value of the documents submitted by the parties at the appropriate procedural stage, which have neither been disputed nor challenged, and whose authenticity has not been questioned. In relation to the documents forwarded as evidence to facilitate the adjudication of the case (supra para. 10) the Court admits 10 The Permanent Court of Arbitration concluded that “[e]very State has to execute the obligations incurred by treaty bona fide, and is urged thereto by the ordinary sanctions of international law in regard to observance of treaty obligations.” Cf. Reports of International Arbitral Awards, The North Atlantic Coast Fisheries (Great Britain, United States), September 7, 1910, Volume XI, pp. 167-226, p. 186. 11 Witness Beltrán Haddad, subpoenaed under an order of the Court (supra note 4), failed to attend the public hearing in the instant case. To that respect, on January 28, 2008 the State requested the Court “not to hold the State liable […] taking into account the failure of the witness to appear to testify […] on grounds until now unknown, for this sudden attitude prevents the Court from hearing a reasonable explanation.” 12 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1998. Series C No. 4, para. 140; Case of Cantoral-Huamaní and García-Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, para. 41; Case of Kimel, supra note 8, para. 32; Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection and Merits. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 179, para. 22, and Case of Yvon Neptune v. Haiti. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 6, 2008, paras. 29 and 30.