15 a) Pedro Chitay Rodríguez and Encarnación Chitay Rodríguez (hereinafter “Encarnación Chitay” or “Encarnación”). Alleged victims. Proposed by the Commission and the representatives. They testified about the activities and the environment that their father developed before the events occurred, the forced disappearance and its cause, the supposed obstacles and the harassments faced by the family in the search for their father, and the subsequent search for justice in this case, the supposed threats, persecution, and fragmentation of their family and the consequences of all these situations. In addition, Encarnación testified about the alleged persecution which she was subjected to; b) Rosalina Tuyuc. Expert witness. Proposed by the Commission. She gave expert opinions about the persecution that indigenous leaders in Guatemala during the internal armed conflict; c) Edgar Armando Gutiérrez Girón. Expert witness. Proposed by the representatives. He gave expert opinions about the context and the pattern of the phenomenon of forced disappearances in Guatemala during the internal armed conflict, and concretely during the 1980s, and d) César Augusto Dávila Gómez. Expert witness. Proposed by the State. He gave expert opinions about the creation and actual function of the PNR, the attention and reparation given to victims of violations of human rights that go before said tribunal. 2. Assessment of Documentary Evidence 50. In this case, as in others,32 the Tribunal admits the evidentiary value of those documents presented at the opportune moment by the parties that were neither disputed, objected to, or had their authenticity placed in doubt. The documents issued by the representatives and the State together with their final written arguments, as well as those issued as evidence in order to better resolve the case as requested by the Tribunal (supra paras. 11 and 12), the Court incorporates them into the body of evidence, in application of that provided in Article 47(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, except those that exceed the purpose of the request. 51. Despite the aforementioned, regarding the evidence requested by the Tribunal on March 26, 2010,33 in order to better resolve the case, regarding the submission of a suitable document in relation to the life expectancy in Guatemala in the year 1981, the Court notes that the representatives sent information about the year 1979 and 1987, not regarding the year 1981 as it was requested; therefore, this Court does not admit the above-mentioned information. Regarding the tables of minimum wages from 1980 up to the date issued by the Ministry of Labor and Social Precaution requested also as evidence to resolve the case, the representatives indicated that in Guatemala the amount of minimum wage does not correlate with the cost of real life, for which they mentioned and attached the report called “the minimum wage in the rural area in Guatemala” of the Coordination of NGOs and cooperatives. In consideration of the aforementioned, the State, 32 Cf. Case Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of 29 of July of 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140; Case Radilla Pacheco V. México, supra note 12, para. 70, and Case Of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, supra note 12, para. 58 33 In addition, the Court requested as proof to better resolve the regulations which reference the National Compensation Program.