8 aforementioned, according the Court’s discretional powers, contemplated in Article 45 of its Rules of Procedure, it may ask the parties for additional evidentiary elements, as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case, without this granting them a new opportunity to expand or add to their arguments or offer new evidence regarding reparations, unless the Court allows for it.9 In this regard, it must be stated that the evidence presented during the reparations process will be included in the case’s body of evidence, which is considered a whole.10 Therefore, the Court will proceed to examine the evidence provided by the parties in the present reparations proceedings. 1. Assessment of the Documentary Evidence 23. In this case, as in others,11 the Tribunal admits the evidentiary value of those documents presented by the parties on the corresponding procedural opportunity in the reparations stage that were not contested or objected, or whose authenticity was not questioned. 24. The Tribunal includes in the body of evidence, pursuant with Article 45 of the Rules of Procedure, the documents forwarded as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case by the representatives.12 25. The representatives presented, along with the brief on reparations, an expert report prepared by Jakeline Jaramillo Barcia, authenticated before a public notary (supra para. 4). At the public hearing and in a brief presented during the public hearing, the State presented observations regarding the content of the document and expressed its disagreement with some of its statements and conclusions. Likewise, the representatives forwarded an expert report prepared by Rodrigo Borja Crison on the “Production Estimate,” which was not objected by any of the parties. In consideration of the aforementioned, the Court includes said expert reports into the body of evidence as documentary evidence, and it will assess them along with the evidence and according to the rules of sound judgment. 26. Regarding the documents provided by the State at the public hearing of September 24, 2009,13 concerning its observations on the representatives’ reparations, as well as its observations regarding the expert report prepared by Mrs. Jakeline Jaramillo Barcia, wherein 9 Cf. Case of Castillo Páez V. Perú. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 43, para. 37; Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. V. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, para. 68, and Case of Chitay Nech et al. V. Guatemala. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2010. Series C No. 212, para. 51. 10 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. V. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 78; Case of Baldeón García V. Perú. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 71, and Case of Ximenes Lopes V. Brazil. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149, para. 58. 11 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140; Case of Gomez Lund et al. (“Guerrilha do Araguaia”) V. Brazil, supra note 8, para. 54, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores V. México, supra note 8, para. 27. 12 Namely: a) expert opinion rendered by Jesús Manuel Silva Vásconez before the Ninth Court on May 20, 2008 and its annexes (case file of Reparations and Costs, tome IV, folios 651 to 655); b) table of legal interests since 1991 until 2009 issued by the competent State entity (case file of Reparations and Costs, tome IV, folios 656 to 683), and c) chart of total breakdown of the taxes argued as paid by the representatives (case file of Reparations and Costs, tome IV, folio 650). 13 Namely: a) Order No. 09430 of September 24, 2009; b) Order No. 09436 of September 24, 2009, and c) document titled “Observations to the document: technical evaluations report of the property of Mrs. María Salvador Chiriboga,” drafted by the architect Jakeline Jaramillo B, in April 2009 (case file of reparations, tome III, folio 568).