6 17. So, the pleadings by the State on this matter will be examined when the Tribunal considers, if necessary, the reparation measures requested. Likewise, the Court will decide on the observations by the State to the motions and pleadings brief in the pertaining section of the instant Judgment, be it when considering the merits or, possibly, reparations. IV COMPETENCE 18. The Inter-American Court has competent jurisdiction to hear the instant case pursuant to Article 62(3) of the Convention as Panamá has been a State Party to the American Convention since June 22, 1978 and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on May 9, 1990. V EVIDENCE 19. On the basis of the provisions in Articles 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as in the case law of the Tribunal regarding evidence and its assessment6, the Court will examine and assess the documentary evidence forwarded by the parties at the various procedural stages when they have had the opportunity to do so, or as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case requested by the President, as well as the depositions by witnesses and the reports rendered by means of a sworn statement before a public official whose acts command full faith and credit (affidavit) and at the public hearing before the Court. To such effect, the Court shall abide by the principles of sound criticism, within the corresponding legal framework.7 A. Documentary evidence, testimonies and expert reports 20. The Tribunal received the statements rendered before a public official whose acts command full faith and credit by the following witnesses and expert witnesses mentioned hereinbelow, on the matters mentioned in this section.8 The contents of such statements is included in the pertaining chapter: 1) Aimée Urrutia Delgado. Wife of the alleged victim, a witness offered by the representatives. She testified, among other matters, about a) the way in which Mr. Tristán Donoso and his family were supposed to have been affected 6 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76, para. 50; Case of Ticona Estrada et al. v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 31; and Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 49. 7 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) supra note 6, para. 76; Case of Ticona Estrada et al., supra note 6, para. 31; and Case of Valle Jaramillo et al., supra note 6, para. 49. 8 In a communication dated June 30, 2008, received on that same day by the Secretariat of the Court, the representatives informed the Tribunal that they desisted from presenting the testimony of Mr. Italo Isaac Antinori (File on the Merits, Book II, folio 517).