7 Experts proposed by the victims’ next of kin: Christian Salazar Volkmann, and Emilio García Méndez. Witnesses proposed by the Inter-American Commission: Ana María Contreras Margarita Urbina Reyna Dalila Villagrán Morales, and Marta Isabel Túnchez Palencia. Expert proposed by the Inter-American Commission: Ana Deutsch. 33. The same day, during the public hearing and at the request of the President, the expert, Christian Salazar Volkmann, submitted copies of the following: a document entitled “Estudio sobre Adopciones and Derechos de los Niños y las Niñas en Guatemala. Guatemala, 2000” (Study of adoptions and rights of the child in Guatemala); a document entitled “Aproximación situacional del niño, niña y adolescente de la calle” (Report on the situation of street children); and a document entitled “Violación a los Derechos Humanos de los Niños de la Calle” (Violation of the human rights of street children) (infra paras. 46 and 52). 34. On March 28, 2001, on the instructions of the President, the Secretariat requested the representatives of the victims’ next of kin and the Commission to present the duly authenticated birth certificates or appropriate documents of Guadalupe Concepción and Zorayda Izabel Figueroa Túnchez, as evidence that would be helpful, pursuant to Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure. 35. On April 19, 2001, the representatives of the victims’ next of kin submitted copies of the birth certificates of Gerardo Adoriman Villagrán Morales, Reyna Dalila Villagrán Morales, Guadalupe Concepción Figueroa Túnchez and Zorayda Izabel Figueroa Túnchez and on May 7, 2001, they forwarded a copy of the birth certificate of Federico Clemente Figueroa Túnchez. IV EVIDENCE GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS ON EVIDENCE 36. Before examining the evidence received, the Court will define the general criteria for evaluating evidence and will make some observations that are applicable to this specific case, most of which have been developed previously by the jurisprudence of this Court. 37. Article 43 of the Rules of Procedure establishes that: Items of evidence tendered by the parties shall be admissible only if previous notification thereof is contained in the application and in the reply thereto and, when appropriate, in the document setting out the preliminary objections and in the answer thereto. [...] Should any of the parties allege force majeure, serious impediment or the emergence of supervening events as grounds for producing an item of evidence, the