27 these rights are considered to exist in perpetuity and are not alienable. If there were a dispute about a specific boundary, this would be adjudicated after consulting the elders and village chiefs. According to their tradition and customary law then, although the Moiwana residents have not occupied their land for at least 18 years, they would maintain rights to that area. Nevertheless, in general there is no State recognition of the traditional customary law among the Maroons; it has existed over the centuries as an autonomous, de facto system. Only some minor aspects are recognized, such as local officials within the communities. The expert witness had the opportunity in December 1986 to interview refugees in French Guiana who had recently fled from Moiwana. He reported that “they were tremendously distressed; they were in shock; they were disoriented.” In fact, many that he came in contact with were unable to speak at all. Not only were they traumatized, but they were also often physically exhausted after running for days in the forest. Finally, the expert witness explained that the traditional N’djuka system of customary law contemplates various measures to remedy offenses, such as public apologies and ceremonies on the one hand, and material compensation on the other. An adequate reparations scheme in this case would demand coming to an agreement satisfactory to the N’djuka people; that is, providing measures in accord with their own customary law and traditions. Certainly, it would be extremely important for the State to create the conditions to guarantee their safe return to Moiwana. To accomplish a return, however, the first critical step would be an investigation of the events occurring on November 29, 1986. The survivors need to know why the deaths occurred and how the perpetrators will be held responsible. C) ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE Documentary evidence 81. In this case, as in others,12 the Court admits the probative value of those documents presented in timely fashion by the parties, in accordance with Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure, and those documents produced at the request of the Court, pursuant to Article 45 of the Rules of Procedure, when the authenticity of said evidence was not challenged or questioned. 82. Regarding the affidavit rendered by Thomas S. Polimé, expert witness proposed by the Commission (supra paragraph 79), the Court rules that it is admissible, insofar as it is in conformity with the President’s Order of August 5, 2004. 83. Suriname contended that “several of the annexes submitted by the Commission are not relevant in this case,” and argued that the Court’s jurisdiction “does not encompass the issues” presented by said annexes. In this regard, the State only cited with specificity the Commission’s annex 29. With respect to the 12 Cf. Case of Caesar, supra note 10, para. 46; Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters, supra note 9, para. 37; and Case of Lori Berenson-Mejía, supra note 10.