investigative measure away from the seat of the Court. Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure stipulate that: The Court may, at any stage of the proceedings: a. Obtain, on its own motion, any evidence it considers helpful and necessary. In particular, it may hear any person whose statement, testimony, or opinion it deems relevant as an alleged victim, witness, expert witness, or in any other capacity, […] d. Commission one or more of its members to take measures to advance the proceedings, including hearings at the seat of the Court or at a different location. […] 12. Precedents exist in which a representative of the Court has executed a probative measure in the defendant State, 3 and also in which members of the Court have received the testimony of an alleged victim in a third State. 4 In addition, testimony has been received from witnesses in a prison in the defendant State; 5 experts have been appointed to perform the exhumation of the remains of an alleged victim at the site of the facts, 6 and to obtain the testimony of someone who, owing to her poor health, could not travel to the seat of the Court. 7 13. There are also precedents in international law in which the international courts have carried out missions or field visits. For example, the International Court of Justice has visited the site of alleged facts (a dam in the State of Hungary) in the context of litigation. 8 For its part, the European Court of Human Rights has carried out fact-finding missions, under the provisions of the European Convention 9 and its Rules of Court. 10 In particular, the European Court executes this type of measure, inter alia: (i) to collect testimony from witnesses, senior State authorities, representatives of international missions, members of non-governmental organizations, and diplomatic personnel (“fact-finding hearings”); 11 or (ii) to conduct “on-the- 3 Cf. Case of Aloeboetoe et al. v. Suriname. Reparations and costs. Judgment of September 10, 1993. Series C No. 15, para. 40. 4 44. 5 16. Cf. Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 25, 2000. Series C No. 70, para. Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, paras. 15 and 6 Cf. Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Preliminary objections. Judgment of February 4, 2000. Series C No. 67, para. 27. 7 Thus, for example, in the Case of Caballero Delgado and Santana v. Colombia, in an Order of the President of the Court of July 18, 1994, it was decided “to appoint professor Bernardo Gaitán Mahecha as a Court expert to carry out the questioning, on Colombian territory, of Rosa Delia Valderrama who, according to the Commission, [was] unable to travel to San José, Costa Rica, owing to the delicate situation of her health. The Secretariat of the Court must provide him with all necessary information to enable him to carry out this procedure.” In addition, it was established that the said testimony should be given in the presence of the State’s Agent for this case, and also of the Commission’s delegate. Cf. Case of Caballero Delgado and Santana v. Colombia. Preliminary objections. Judgment of January 21, 1994. Series C No. 17, para. 16. Cf. International Court of Justice. Case Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Order of 5 February 1997, I.C.J. Reports 1997, p. 3. 8 9 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, article 38. 10 Rules of the European Court of Human Rights, Addendum to the Rules of Court, Rule 1A. Cf. E.C.H.R., Tekin Yildiz v. Turkey, Application No. 22913/04, Judgment of November 10, 2005; Adali v. Turkey, Application No. 38187/97, Judgment of March 31, 2005; Sufi Elmi v. the United Kingdom, Applications Nos. 8319/07 and 11449/07, Judgment of June 25, 2011; Davydov and Others v. Ukraine, Applications Nos. 17674/02 and 39081/02, Judgment of July 1, 2010, and N. v. Finland, Application No. 38885/02, Judgment of July 26, 2005. 11 5