37 spécialisées; a June 17, 2002 laboratory report prepared by Christophe Ronsin of the Laboratoire d´analyses spécialisées; an audiometry conducted by the Cabinet Dr Ardaud, Bonefille et Gaucher on June 19, 2004; a medical certificate prepared by doctor Micheline Tulliez of the Service d´anatomie et cytologie pathologiques on June 7, 2001; a medical certificate prepared by doctor Micheline Tulliez of the Service d´anatomie et cytologie pathologiques on April 1, 2004; a medical certificate prepared by doctor Micheline Tulliez of the Service d´anatomie et cytologie pathologiques on April 5, 2004; a medical certificate prepared by doctor Philippe Blanche, of the Groupe Hospitalier Cochin,- Saint Vicent De Paul-La Roche-Guyon on June 6, 2001 (supra para. 41); and the representatives submitted together with the evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case a video (supra para. 40), which they had not offered and which had not been requested by the Court. In view of the fact that the above was not disputed by the parties and that it is useful to rule on the instant case, they admit it as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case pursuant to Article 45 of the Rules of Procedure. 85. In regards to the appendixes submitted by the representatives of the alleged victim and his next of kin together with the final written pleadings (supra para. 41), the Court deems them useful and notes that they were neither disputed nor challenged, and their authenticity and veracity were not questioned. Therefore they are included in the body of evidence, in accordance with the provisions of Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure. Assessment of the Testimony and Expert Opinions 86. The Court admits the statement rendered at the public hearing by Daniel Tibi (supra paras. 33 and 76.a), insofar as it is in accordance with the object of the examination, and it will assess it within the context of the body of evidence. This Court deems that since he is the alleged victim and has a direct interest in this case, his statements cannot be assessed in an isolated manner, but rather within the context of the body of evidence of the proceeding. The statements of the alleged victim have a special value, as it is he who can provide more information on the consequences of the violations that may have been committed against him.25 87. The Court likewise admits the statement rendered at the public hearing by Beatrice Baruet (supra paras. 33 and 76.b), insofar as it is in accordance with the object of the examination, and it will assess it within the context of the body of evidence. The Court deems that since she is a next of kin of the alleged victim and has a direct interest in this case, her statements cannot be assessed in an isolated manner, but rather within the context of the body of evidence of the proceeding.26 The statements of the next of kin of the alleged victims are useful regarding the merits and reparations, insofar as they can provide further information on the consequences of the violations committed.27 25 See Case of Herrera Ulloa, supra note 3, para. 72; Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 8, para. 53; and Case of the “Five Pensioners”. February 28, 2003 Judgment. Series C No. 98, para. 85. 26 See Case of the Goméz Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 8, para. 62; Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 9, para. 79; and Case of Molina Theissen. Reparations, supra note 9, para. 32. 27 See Case of the Goméz Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 8, para. 63; Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 9, para. 79; and Case of Herrera Ulloa, supra note 3, para. 72.