7 Consequently, in light of the Tribunal’s jurisprudence regarding this subject,17 the Court dismisses the preliminary objection of the State. IV COMPETENCE 24. The Inter-American Court is competent, pursuant to Article 62(3) of the Convention, to see this case, since Venezuela has been a State Party to the American Convention since August 9, 1977 and it recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on June 24, 1981. V EVIDENCE 25. Following Articles 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as the Tribunal’s jurisprudence regarding the evidence and its assessment,18 the Court shall examine and assess the evidence in this file. A) EVIDENCE, WITNESS AND EXPERT WITNESS 26. At the President’s request19, the Tribunal received the affidavits of the following persons: a) Marta Colomina and Patricia Poleo Brito, a journalist whose affidavit was proposed by the representatives. She referred to the context in which the television interview called “La Entrevista” [The Interview] was made. It was broadcast on April 16, 2004, and Mr. Francisco Usón Ramírez took part in it. The journalist also made reference to the public interest that such facts allegedly produced, and to the content and scope of the statements by Francisco Usón Ramírez in such program that brought forth the military criminal process against him; b) Antonio Rosich Saccani, a lawyer whose affidavit was proposed by the representatives. He referred to the alleged public interest produced by this case, and to the characteristics of the trial against Francisco Usón Ramírez in the military jurisdiction; c) Pedro González Caro, a Captain (presently retired) whose affidavit was proposed by the representatives. He referred to the alleged effect of the statements by Francisco Usón Ramírez on the Armed Forces; d) María Eugenia Borges de Usón y Maria Jose Usón Borges, Mr. Francisco Usón Ramírez’s wife and daughter, whose affidavit was proposed by the representatives. She referred to the alleged effect of the facts on the living conditions of her family, her social and professional relations, and the health and mood of her family members; 17 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 9, para. 88; Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”)), supra note 9, para. 20, and Case of Reverón Trujillo, supra note 12, paras. 20 to 23. 18 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua-Morales et al) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 76; Case of DaCosta Cadogan, supra note 9, para. 32, and Case of Garibaldi, supra note 11, para 53. 19 Cf. Order of the President of the Court, supra note 6.