24 response, attitude, and the harm caused; the [supposed] tortuous and convoluted procedure to identify [her daughter Laura]; the way the investigations were conducted; the [alleged] obstacles and the denial of justice; the management of the fund set up by the state Attorney General’s Office and the [Office of the Attorney General of the Republic]; the impact on her life and that of her family owing to the [alleged] process of victimization; the handling of the other support provided by the government; the [alleged] lack of access to information; the [supposed] absence of legal support and advice to promote the investigations; the [presumed] negligence of the authorities; the process she had to follow to access the Inter-American System, [and] the [alleged] pressure exercised by the authorities.” d) Rhonda Copelon, law professor, specialist, inter alia, in human rights, international criminal law, gender, and violence against women. Expert witness proposed by the Commission. She testified, inter alia, about “the problem of violence against women in general; her connection with the discrimination traditionally experienced; the need for enhancing institutional capacities and adopting comprehensive strategies to prevent, punish and eliminate discrimination, and improving access to justice for victims of gender-based violence.” Following her oral statement, the expert witness forwarded the Court a written version of her expert opinion. e) Rodrigo Caballero Rodríguez. Witness proposed by the State. He testified, inter alia, about “[t]he measures taken for the development, by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, of the investigations into the deaths of Claudia Ivette González, Laura Berenice Ramos Monárrez and Esmeralda Herrera Monreal during the second stage of the investigations; [t]he results obtained from th[ese] inquiries, and [t]he measures underway and pending implementation.” f) Silvia Sepúlveda Ramírez. Witness proposed by the State. She testified, inter alia, about “[t]he expert appraisals made during the investigations into the death of Claudia Ivette González, Laura Berenice Ramos Monárrez and Esmeralda Herrera Monreal; and [the p]rogress and results in the field of forensic genetics in the state of Chihuahua, especially in Ciudad Juárez, arising from the implementation of the new criminal justice system and reforms in forensics.” g) Rosa Isela Jurado Contreras. “Judge of the Sixth Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Chihuahua.” Expert witness proposed by the State. She testified, inter alia, about “[t]he amendments to the law, and the operation of the new criminal justice system in the state of Chihuahua, as well as on its results and potential.” 2. Assessment of the evidence 85. In this case as in others,48 the Court admits the probative value of those documents presented by the parties at the appropriate opportunity that were not contested or opposed and whose authenticity was not questioned, as well as the 48 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections, supra note 29, para. 140; Case of Ríos et al. v. Venezuela, supra note 44, para. 81, and Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, supra note 22, para. 94.