127. The Court finds the video to be admissible, as it provides background information useful for understanding the circumstances surrounding the alleged violations brought before it. 84 In view of the representatives’ observations, however, its assessment of this material will not include consideration of content unrelated to the case at hand. 128. The State also submitted videos from the evidence files of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The Court admits them and points to its decision concerning other evidence from the same source (supra para. 111). C. Assessment of the Evidence 129. Based on its consistent case law concerning evidence and its assessment, 85 the Court will examine and assess the probative elements submitted by the parties and the Commission, the statements, testimonies and expert opinions, and the additional helpful evidence it requested and added to the case file, to discern the facts of the case and adjudge the merits. To this end, it will abide by the principles of sound judicial discretion within the relevant regulatory framework, always cognizant of the full body of evidence and the allegations in the case.86 130. With regard to the videos presented by the representatives and the State, the Court will assess their content in the context of the body of evidence and applying the rules of sound judicial discretion.87 Also, as regards articles or texts referring to events related to the case, the assessment of their contents is not subject to the formalities required of testimonial evidence. However, their probative value will depend on whether they corroborate or refer to aspects related to this specific case.88 131. Finally, in keeping with the Court’s case law, the statements made by the alleged victims cannot be assessed in isolation, but only in the context of all the evidence in the proceedings, inasmuch as they can provide further information on the claimed violations and their consequences.89 D. Evidentiary value and assessment of the “procedure to reconstruct the facts” 132. The State, in its answering brief to the submission of the case and observations on the brief of pleadings, motions and evidence, proposed, inter alia as evidence, an exercise to “reconstruct the facts” as a means to help the judges on the inter-American Court (i) “understand the extreme situation facing the hostages”, (ii) understand the context in which Cf. Case of the Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, supra, para. 55, and Case of García and Family v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2012. Series C No. 258, para. 49. 84 Cf. Case of the “White Van" (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, paras. 69 to 76, and Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru, supra, para. 46. 85 Cf. Case of the “White Van" (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, supra, para. 76, and Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru, supra, para. 46. 86 Cf. Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 194, para. 93, and Case of Osorio Rivera and family v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2013. Series C No. 274, para. 40. 87 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 72, and Case of Rodríguez Vera et al. (the Disappeared from the Palace of Justice) v. Colombia, supra, para. 75. 88 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 43, and Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru, supra, para. 46. 89