37. Pursuant to the Order of the President of December 2, 2010,21, the Court heard the following declarations at the public hearing from the alleged victim and two experts: a) José Alfredo Mejía, alleged victim proposed by the Commission and the representatives, who declared on: i) the alleged obstacles he has had to confront regarding compliance with the Constitutional Judgment of March 12, 2002; ii) how the alleged unconstitutional actions taken by the Council of General Officers affected his professional career and life plan by not allowing him to rise in rank, as it was his alleged right given that he satisfied all the legal requisites; iii) how he was affected by the issuance by the President of the Republic of the executive decrees of suspension and discharge, and iv) how his life was affected given that during eight years the respondents allegedly refused to comply with the judgment issued on March 12, 2002, and the action of noncompliance ordered by the Constitutional Court of October 8, 2009. b) Jaime Vintinilla, proposed by the Commission, who rendered an expert statement on the failure to execute the judgments of the Constitutional Tribunal. c) Alex Valle Franco, proposed by the State, who rendered an expert statement on: i) the nature of the action of unconstitutionality of Executive Decrees in the Constitution of 1998; ii) the legal effect of the action of unconstitutionality of the Executive Decree in the Constitution of 1998 in the former Constitutional Tribunal of Ecuador; iii) the legal effects of the action of unconstitutionality, illegality, and illegitimacy, in regard to the reparation of damages. Basic differences, complimentary analysis and an analysis of context in the Constitution of 1998, and iv) the juridical nature of the action of noncompliance in the current Constitution. B. Admissibility of the documentary evidence 38. In this case, as in others, 22 the Court accepts the probative value of the documents presented by the parties at the proper procedural opportunity that were not contested or opposed, and the authenticity of which was not questioned. 39. In the written brief containing the preliminary objections of August 19, 2010, of the representatives and in the brief of December 11, 2009 of the State, several annexes were attached. Moreover, during the public hearing, the State presented two orders, and the representatives and the State submitted various annexes together with the final written arguments presented on March 28, 2011. In this regard, the Court highlights that various documents had been offered opportunely23 21 In said order, the statement rendered by public notery (affidavit) of expert Víctor Hugo López was ordered. Nevertheless, given that said affidavit was presented in to time-barred fashion it was not admitted. (supra para. 9). 22 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Merits, supra note 6, para. 140; Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. V. Perú, supra note 19, para. 38, and Case of Vera Vera et al. V. Ecuador, supra note 12, para. 22. 23 Namely: 1) Noncompliance action issued by the Constitutional Court on October 8, 2009; 2) Evaluation sheet of personal history carrie dout by the Council of Generals in 2000 as to requirement for promotion to the rank of Brigadier General, 3) Diploma of Merit granted on October 18, 1991 and grade of 12