9 22. In the instant case, as in others, the Tribunal admits the evidentiary value of the documents forwarded by the parties at the appropriate stage in the proceedings9 that were not contested nor challenged, and the authenticity of which was not questioned. In connection with the documents forwarded as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case (supra para. 9), the Court joins them to the body of evidence under Article 45(2) of the Rules of Procedure. 23. Concerning the testimonies and reports rendered by the witnesses and the expert witnesses at the public hearing and by means of sworn statements, the Court deems them pertinent inasmuch as they dwell on the subject matter which was defined by the President of the Tribunal in the Order whereby they were admitted, bearing in mind the comments by the parties.10 24. The Tribunal deems that the statement by Mr. Tristán Donoso, alleged victim in the instant case, and the affidavit by his wife, may not be assessed separately, for such persons have an interest in the outcome of this case, for which reason they are to be considered along with the whole body of evidence gathered in these proceedings.11 25. On the other hand, in connection with the testimony by Sydney Sittón, when such evidence was being rendered the representatives observed that such deposition, besides containing elements related to the aspects required in the Order by the President “also includes personal statements and evaluations beyond the subject matter of the testimony and that of the proceedings as a whole.” For which reason, “for the purpose of preventing situations which might hinder the proceedings or affect the spirit of respect and good faith among the parties,” they moved for the Tribunal “to grant a maximum delay of three days for the witness to exclude the personal statements to which we refer and to limit himself only to those aspects giving the Court elements to determine the subject matter of the dispute.” At such time, the President of the Tribunal did not grant such request inasmuch as it would imply modifying the evidence rendered. 26. Later, when submitting its comments on the statements rendered before a public official whose acts command full faith and credit, the Inter-American Commission indicated that “the depositions by Messrs. Rolando Rodríguez Bernal, Walid Zayed and Sydney Sittón contain information that could go beyond their nature as testimonies and/or the purpose of requesting the evidence; for which reason the [Commission] request[ed] the Court to consider them only inasmuch as they are pertinent and as they provide the information requested by [the Tribunal] in the instant case.” In its turn, regarding the testimony by Sydney Sittón, the State pointed out, among other considerations, that “it is an evident ad hominem attack” against the former Attorney General. 9 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140. Case of Ticona Estrada et al., supra note 6, para. 34; and Case of Valle Jaramillo et al., supra note 6, para. 53. 10 Cf. Case of Yatama v. Nicaragua. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C No. 127, para. 122; Case of Ticona Estrada et al., supra note 6, para. 37; and Case of Valle Jaramillo et al., supra note 6, para. 54. 11 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 43; Case of Ticona Estrada et al., supra note 6, para. 37; and Case of Valle Jaramillo et al., supra note 6, para. 54.