39. However, the Court considers that it does not have competence to rule on the alleged accusation of the members of the Río Negro community as being “guerrillas, the social basis of the guerrilla, internal enemies and subversives,” and on the alleged “discrimination” against them because, accord to the Merits Report presented by the Commission, those violations took place prior to March 9, 1987. Lastly, regarding to facts relating to the “denial of justice in light of the procedural obligation arising from the obligation of guarantee,” the Court considers it pertinent to indicate that, even though it has maintained that it has competence to analyze facts that refer to the presumed denial of justice in light of the procedural obligation arising from the obligation of guarantee that arises from some articles of the American Convention that recognize substantive rights, such as Articles 4 and 5, which refer to the right to life and the right to personal integrity, respectively, in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention, those facts must fall within the Court’s temporal competence.18 In this case, the Commission and the representatives included facts relating to the presumed arbitrary detention, torture, rape and extrajudicial execution of several members of the Río Negro Community. However, these facts took place prior to March 9, 1987; consequently, owing to the objection based on temporal competence filed by the State, the Court cannot rule on them. Nevertheless, the Court will analyze the arguments concerning the supposed denial of justice in the light of the alleged violation of the rights recognized in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, regarding which the Court does have competence. In these terms, the Court accepts the State’s argument on lack of competence ratione temporis. VI EVIDENCE 40. Based on the provisions of Articles 46, 50, 57 and 58 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as its case law concerning evidence and its assessment, the Court will examine and assess the documentary probative elements submitted on different procedural occasions, as the statements of the presumed victims, and the opinions of the expert witnesses provided by affidavit and during the public hearing before the Court. To this end, the Court will abide by the principles of sound judicial discretion, within the applicable legal framework.19 A. Documentary, testimonial and expert evidence 41. The Court received different documents presented as evidence by the Inter-American Commission, the representatives, and the State, and also the statements and opinions provided by affidavit of the following individuals: María Eustaquia Uscap Iboy, Antonia Osorio Sánchez, Bruna Perez Osorio, María Osorio Chen, Juan Méndez, Fredy Armando Peccerelli Monterroso and Alfredo Itzep Manuel. In addition, during the public hearing, the Court received the testimony of Jesús Tecu Osorio and Carlos Chen Osorio, and the expert opinions of Rosalina Tuyuc Velásquez and Michael Paul Hermann Mörth.20 18 Cf. Case of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2009. Series C No. 211, para. 48. 19 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 76, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, supra, para. 31. 20 The purposes of the testimony and expert opinions can be consulted in the Order summoning a public hearing of May 31, 2012, supra, first and fifth operative paragraphs. 17