38 within the entire body of evidence. In that respect, the Court considers that, since they are next of kin of the alleged victims and have a direct interest in the case, their statements must be assessed together with all the evidence in the proceedings and not in isolation. In matters concerning merits and to reparations, the statements of the next of kin of the alleged victims are useful insofar as they can provide more information on the consequences of the violations perpetrated.15 81. With regard to the expert report (supra paras. 52 and 72), which was not contested or opposed, the Court admits it and accords it probative value. 82. In view of the above, the Court will assess the probative value of the documents, statements and expert report submitted in writing or made before it. The evidence presented during the proceeding has been integrated into a single body of evidence, which is considered as a whole.16 VI PROVEN FACTS 83. Having examined the different documents, the statements of the witnesses, the report of the expert witness, and the communications of the Commission and the State during this proceeding, this Court considers that the following facts are proven: 84. Background and social and legal context of the country 84(a) Starting in the 1960s, various guerrilla groups emerged in Colombia and, owing to their activities, the State declared “the disturbance of public order and a state of emergency in national territory.”17 In this context, on December 24, 1965, the State issued Legislative Decree No. 3398 “organizing national defense;” it was transitory in nature, but was adopted as permanent legislation by Act 48 of 1968 (with the exception of articles 30 and 34). Articles 25 and 33 of the Legislative Decree provided the legal basis for the creation of the “self-defense groups.” The preambular paragraphs of this legislation indicated that “the subversive activities carried out by the extremist groups to disturb the legal order, call for a coordinated effort by all the nation’s law enforcement bodies and community leaders;” in this respect, the said article 25 stipulated that “[a]ll Colombians, men and women, not affected by conscription to obligatory military service, may be used by the Government in activities and tasks contributing to re-establish normality.” Also, paragraph 3 of the said article 33 established that “[a]cting through the authorized commands and when it deems necessary, the Ministry of National Defense may dispose of, as its private property, weapons restricted to the exclusive use of the Armed Forces.”18 The “self-defense groups” were established legally under the said norms, so they were supported by the State authorities.19 15 Cf. Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 3, paras. 53 and 54; Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 3, para. 132; and Case of Bulacio, supra note 3, para. 66. 16 Cf. Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 3, para. 57; Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 3, para. 129; and Case of Bulacio, supra note 3, para. 68. 17 Cf. Legislative decree 3398 of December 24, 1965 (helpful evidence submitted by the State on May 26, 2004, requested by the Court in the Order of April 22, 2004, tome II, folios 3548 to 3553). 18 Cf. Legislative decree 3398 of December 24, 1965; and Act 48 of December 16, 1968 (helpful evidence presented by the State on May 26, 2004, requested by the Court in an Order of April 22, 2004, tome II, folios 3548 to 3556).