31 have the greatest possible number of probative elements in order to assess and draw conclusions about the facts. 90. The Court also adds the following documents to the body of evidence in application of Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure, because it considers them useful to decide this case:(a) United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Office of the Dominican Republic, Informe Nacional de Desarrollo Humano 2005: Hacia una inserción mundial incluyente y renovada; (b) United Nations, Committee on the Rights of the Child, Examination of the Reports presented by the States Parties under Article 44 of the Convention. Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child. The Dominican Republic. UN Doc. CRC/C/15/Add.150, 21 February 2001; (c) World Bank, Dominican Republic Poverty Assessment: Poverty in a High-Growth Economy (1986 – 2000), 2 volumes, 2001; (d) Bridget Wooding and Richard Moseley-Williams, Inmigrantes haitianos y dominicanos de ascendencia haitiana en la República Dominicana. Santo Domingo, the Dominican Republic: Cooperación Internacional para el Desarrollo y el Servicio Jesuita a Refugiados y Migrantes, 2004; (e) United Nations, Human Rights Committee, Comments by the Government of the Dominican Republic on the Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/71/DOM/Add.1, 28 May 2002; (f) Organization of American States, Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 1991, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.81, doc. 6 rev. 1, of February 14, 1992; (g) Organization of American States, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the Situation of Human Rights in the Dominican Republic, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.104, doc. 49 rev. 1, of October 7, 1999, and (h) United Nations, Commission on Human Rights, “Human Rights and Extreme Poverty,” report presented by the independent expert responsible for the issue of human rights and extreme poverty, A. M. Lizin, in accordance with resolution 2002/30 of the Commission on Human Rights, Addition: Mission to the Dominican Republic. UN Doc. E/CN.4/2003/52/Add.1, 16 January 2003. 91. The Court admits the authenticated statements made by the children Dilcia Yean and Violeta Bosico (supra paras. 85(a)(4) and 85(a)(1)), and by Tiramen Bosico Cofi, Leonidas Oliven Yean and Teresa Tucent Mena (supra paras. 85(a)(2), 85(a)(5) and 85(a)(3)), to the extent they are in keeping with the purpose of the statement, and assesses them together with the body of evidence. The Court considers that, as they are the alleged victims and their next of kin who have a direct interest in the case, their statements must be assessed together with all the evidence in the proceedings and not in isolation. The statements of the alleged victims and those of their next of kin are useful insofar as they can provide more information on the consequences of the alleged violations.23 92. In relation to the expert report submitted by Samuel Martínez (supra para. 8(b)(1)), which the State contested because it considered that the instant case “was not a class action that attempted to group together all the children of Haitian origin, and it did not refer to nationals of that country, so that it was totally irrelevant and out of order for [Mr. Martínez] to refer to aspects of Haitian migration and discrimination,” this Court admits it, because it considers it useful to decide the case; however, it bears in mind the State’s objections and assesses the report together with the body of evidence, applying the rules of sound criticism. 23 Cf. Case of Yatama, supra note 13, para. 116; Case of Yakye Axa Indigenous Community, supra note 16, para. 43, and the Case of Moiwana community, supra note 8, para. 84.