had received an order from the Ministry of Justice and it had even sent her a draft of the corresponding petition. During the investigation, the statements of four accused persons were received and the prosecutor determined that there was insufficient material to open a criminal action. However, Judge Alain Núñez opened the case because he found circumstantial evidence, but for the crime of illegal detention, ill treatment and torture, and not for the crime of forced disappearance. The problem is that, for political reasons, forced disappearance is not included as a crime in Bolivian legislation. Some public officials that the witness mentioned in her statement were investigated during this criminal action; their statements were received. The witness appeared as complainant at the trial. The proceeding was filed; the justification given by Judge Alain Núñez to declare that the action was without merit was that the crime was extinguished. The witness filed an appeal against this decision before the First Chamber and then the Second Chamber of the Superior Court of Santa Cruz. These instances confirmed the judge’s decision. On July 27, 2001, she filed an application for amparo before the Superior Court of Santa Cruz, which rejected it. At the time of the public hearing on reparations before this Court, the final instance that remained to her was the Constitutional Court, and she appeared before it. The officials mentioned in her statement have been investigated in cases similar to that of her son. Every day, the witness wakes up thinking about what she can do to find the remains of José Carlos, to find a reply, and to ensure that these events are not repeated. The State has not apologized to her for the detention and disappearance of her son, José Carlos. She asked the Inter-American Court that a monument should be erected to the memory of José Carlos because this would allow future generations to learn about this part of Bolivia’s history and because the next of kin of detaineddisappeared persons have the right to perpetuate in some way the memory of the youth who died because they disagreed with the political system. The draft law on force disappearance has not been adopted and, since 2000, it is before the Constitution and Judicial Police Committee, although no action is being taken. C) EVALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE 47. The body of evidence in a case is unique and is made up of the evidence submitted at all stages of the proceeding13; thus, the evidence provided by the parties at the preliminary objections and the merits stage also forms part of the evidentiary material that will be considered during this stage. * * * ASSESSMENT OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 48. The Court accepts the evidentiary value of those documents submitted by the parties at the appropriate procedural occasion, which were not contested or objected to, and whose authenticity was not questioned. 13 cf. Cantoral Benavides case. Reparations, supra note 3, para. 34; the case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community, supra note 5, para. 98; and The “Street Children” case (Villagrán Morales et al.). Reparations, supra note 3, para. 53.