a) Karen Atala Riffo, the alleged victim proposed by the representatives, who made a statement regarding: i) the alleged violation of her rights from the beginning of the custody proceeding of her daughters and ii) the alleged impact of the decision issued by the Supreme Court of Chile on her personal and family life; b) Juan Carlos Marín, an expert witness proposed by the representatives, a Chilean lawyer and professor of Civil Law at the Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo of Mexico, who rendered an expert opinion regarding: the use of the recurso de queja (remedy of complaint) and its exceptional use; c) Robert Warren Wintemute, an expert witness proposed by the representatives, Professor of Human Rights at King’s College London, who rendered an expert opinion regarding: the status of International Law regarding discrimination based on sexual orientation, with emphasis on the European Human Rights System; d) Rodrigo Uprimny, an expert witness proposed by the Commission, an expert on the right to equality and non-discrimination, who rendered an expert opinion regarding: i) international human rights standards related to sexual orientation and their links with the rights to equality, non-discrimination and private life and ii) the treatment of sexual orientation under international law as a prohibited criterion for discrimination, and as an aspect of a person’s private life and the relevant case law in the universal human rights system, in other regional systems and in comparative law; e) Allison Jernow, an expert witness proposed by the Commission, a lawyer with the International Commission of Jurists and coordinator of the project on sexual orientation and gender identity, who rendered an expert opinion regarding: i) the use of sexual orientation as a factor in judicial decisions regarding custody, in light of international human rights standards in the matter of equality, non-discrimination and private and family life; and ii) the relationship between the standards of international human rights law and custody issues in the present case, and f) Emilio García Mendez, an expert witness proposed by the Commission, an international adviser on the rights of the child, who rendered an expert opinion on: i) international standards on the human rights of children applicable to cases related to care and custody; ii) the way in which the best interests of children and their right to participate and be heard in procedures concerning them, must be reflected in the practice of the judicial authorities who decide such cases and iii) the harm caused to the child’s best interests when discriminatory prejudices are applied in such decisions. B. Admission of Documentary Evidence 19. In the case at hand, as in many other cases28, the Court admits the evidentiary value of such documents timely forwarded by the parties, which have not been disputed or challenged, or their authenticity questioned, only insofar as these are pertinent and useful to determine the facts and their possible legal consequences. 28 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140; and Case of Fontevecchia and D`Amico v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Legal Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2011. Series C Nº. 238, para. 13. 11