III JURISDICTION 12. The Inter-American Court is competent to hear this case pursuant to Article 62(3) of the Convention, because Venezuela has been a State Party to the American Convention since August 9, 1977, and accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on June 24, 1981. IV EVIDENCE 13. Based on the provisions of Articles 46, 47, 48, 50, 57 and 58 of the Rules of Procedure, together with the Court’s case law concerning evidence and its assessment,8 the Court will examine the probative documentary evidence forwarded by the parties at the corresponding procedural opportunities, and also the statement of the presumed victim, the testimony, and the expert opinion provided by affidavit, by audiovisual means, and during the public hearing before the Court, and the helpful evidence requested by the Court and its President (supra paras. 9 and 11). When examining and assessing the evidence, the Court will abide by the rules of sound judicial discretion within the corresponding legal framework.9 A) Documentary, testimonial and expert evidence 14. The Court received different documents presented as evidence by the Inter-American Commission, the representative and the State attached to their main briefs. The Court also received the affidavits provided by the witnesses Eligio Cedeño, Didier Alirio Rojas Rodríguez, Jimai Montiel Calles and Enrique Alberto Arrieta Pérez. Regarding the evidence rendered during the public hearing, the Court received the testimony provided by electronic audiovisual means by the presumed victim Raúl José Díaz Peña, as well as the testimony of witness Elvis Ramírez and expert witness Espartaco José Martínez Barrios.10 15. Furthermore, in a brief of November 18, 2011, the Inter-American Commission advised the Court that “owing to his health,” expert witness Alberto Arteaga Sánchez was “unable to provide the expert opinion” required, ex officio, by the President of the Court. For its part, the State failed to forward the affidavit made by witness Ricardo Hecker Puterman within the corresponding time frame, without any justification. Likewise, the representative did not forward the opinion provided by affidavit by expert witness James Jean within the respective time frame, but rather submitted a document entitled “expert opinion on the psychological reports prepared by the Florida Center for Survivors of Torture,” by Gisell Estrella Viña and Maribel Del Río-Roberts (infra para. 21). 8 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 Fornerón and daughter v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and costs. Judgment of April 27, 2012. Series C No. 242, para. 10. 9 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, para. 76, and Case of Fornerón and daughter v. Argentina, para. 10. 10 The purpose of all these statements was established in the Order of the President of the Court of November 2, 2011, which can be consulted on the Court’s web page at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/diaz_2_11_11.pdf (last consulted on June 26, 2012). 6