10 22. Based on the provisions of Articles 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as the Court’s case law concerning evidence and its assessment,39 the Court will proceed to examine and assess the probative elements forwarded by the parties at different procedural opportunities or as evidence requested on the instructions of the President, together with the testimonies, the informative statements, and the expert opinions rendered before the Court or by means of an affidavit. To this end, the Court shall abide by the principles of sound criticism, within the corresponding legal framework.40 A) DOCUMENTARY, TESTIMONIAL AND EXPERT EVIDENCE 23. The Court underscores that, when notifying the application, on the instructions of the President and taking into account the Commission’s request in paragraph 157 of the application, the State was asked that, when submitting its answer to the application and observations on the representative’s brief with pleadings, motions and evidence, it forward complete and legible copies of the documentation relating to the investigations and to the domestic proceedings filed in connection with this case, as well as a copy of the applicable laws and regulations. The State did not present most of this information. The Court recalls that the parties must submit to the Court all the evidence they are requested to provide, so that it is has as much relevant information as possible to deliberate on the facts and motivate its decisions. 24. The witnesses proposed by the Commission, Yvon Neptune and Ronald Saint-Jean, testified about the detention conditions that Mr. Neptune allegedly endured. Mr. Neptune also testified about the criminal proceedings filed against him and their effects, as well as about his hunger strikes while he was detained. 25. In addition, the statement made by Serge Henry Vieux, the expert witness proposed by the Commission, was provided. He made a general statement about the Haitian judicial system and criminal proceedings, particularly during the period when the facts of the instant case occurred, as well as about the judicial proceedings filed against Mr. Neptune. 26. The informative statement of Mr. Mario Joseph, proposed by the Commission, was also provided concerning the criminal proceedings filed against Mr. Neptune and the prison conditions that he supposedly experienced. 27. During the public hearing, convened and held as a procedure for taking evidence, the Court heard the testimony of Mr. Neptune, and the informative statement of Mario Joseph; they both testified on the facts regarding which the hearing had been convened (supra para. 14). 39 Cf. Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, para. 68; the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76, para. 50, and Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 15. See also the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Perú. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, paras. 183 and 184; Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile, supra note 37, paras. 67, 68 and 69, and Servellón García et al. v. Honduras. Reparations and costs. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, paras. 34 and 35. 40 Cf. The “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 76; The Saramaka People, supra note 36, para. 63, and Albán Cornejo et al., supra note 38, para. 26.