16 55. The Court admits the testimony given by Ana María Contreras, Margarita Urbina, Reyna Dalila Villagrán Morales and Marta Isabel Túnchez Palencia, in the public hearing on reparations held in the instant case, only insofar as it adheres to the purpose of the questionnaire proposed by the Commission. In this respect, this Court considers that as they are close relatives and have a direct interest in the case, the evaluation of their statements must be rigorously subjected to the criterion that consists in evaluating each piece of evidence in relation to the whole body of evidence. In these circumstances, the statements of Mrs. Contreras, Mrs. Urbina, Mrs. Villagrán Morales and Mrs. Túnchez Palencia have a particular value, insofar as they can provide important information on the consequences of the violations that were perpetrated14. The statements referred to are incorporated into the body of evidence, in accordance with the said considerations. C) EXPERT EVIDENCE 56. At the public hearing held on March 12, 2001, the Court received the reports of the experts proposed by the representatives of the victims’ next of kin and the Inter-American Commission. The statements of these experts are summarized below: a) Expert report of Ana Deutsch, clinical psychologist in transcultural psychotherapy, and the evaluation and treatment of the psychological consequences of trauma She met with Ana María Contreras, Margarita Urbina, Reyna Dalila Villagrán Morales and Marta Isabel Túnchez Palencia in order to conduct three group interviews of approximately one hour and a half each, and then met individually with each of them on two occasions, for approximately one hour each time. All the meetings were held over two days. If a person who has been abducted, secretly and unlawfully detained and tortured survives such a situation, he experiences a devastating impact, which to a great extent destroys his mental defenses and his personality, and causes him considerable mental and emotional pain. In psychiatric terms, the situation that results from this type of experience is classified or diagnosed as post-traumatic stress syndrome. In this case, the impact is distinct, because children or adolescents have less mental strength to tolerate abduction and torture. The impact is also devastating for their next of kin; even though the latter have not been subject to physical ill treatment. The pain could be mitigated slightly if justice is done and those responsible are punished, and this could assist in the process of overcoming the symptoms that such an experience may cause. In this case, where those responsible were police agents, there is more emotional pain and it is more difficult to realize what has happened, because Government agents should protect the population. 14 cf. Ivcher Bronstein case, supra note 2, para. 75; Cantoral Benavides case. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, para. 59; and Durand and Ugarte case. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series C No. 68, para. 53.