10 d) Dr. Timothy Green, expert witness proposed by the representatives, is a clinical psychologist. He testified on his psychological examination of the alleged victim and his subsequent psychological report concerning the alleged victim’s mental state in relation to defenses at trial and the imposition of the death penalty; e) Anthony V. Grant, expert witness proposed by the State, is Director of Community Legal Services and an expert on the Barbadian community legal services system. He testified on the requirements for legal aid in death penalty cases; f) Anthony Blackman, expert witness proposed by the State, is the Principal Crown Counsel of the Department of Public Prosecution. He testified on the law and procedure related to the defense of diminished responsibility in death penalty cases, and g) Dr. Brian MacLachlan, expert witness proposed by the State, is a consultant psychiatrist at the Barbados Psychiatric Hospital and has provided expert psychiatric evidence in the law courts of Barbados. He testified as to psychiatric assessments in death penalty cases in Barbados. B) Evidence Assessment 34. In the case at hand, as in many others,14 the Court, in accordance with Article 46 of the Rules of Procedure, admits and recognizes the evidentiary value of the documents submitted by the parties at the appropriate procedural stage which have neither been disputed nor challenged, and the authenticity of which has not been questioned (supra paras. 9 and 12). 35. With respect to the expert opinions rendered by the expert witnesses that were not objected to by the parties, the Court deems them pertinent insofar as they comport with the scope defined by the Order of the President (supra para. 8), and admits them to be weighed within the context of the body of evidence in this case and in accordance with the rules of sound judgment. 36. With respect to the expert testimony of Anthony Blackman, which the State offered extemporaneously, the Court notes that its admissibility has not been challenged by the parties, and finds it useful and relevant to the resolution of the issues in the present case regarding the defense of diminished responsibility in death penalty cases. Therefore, the Court incorporates it into the body of evidence, pursuant to Article 47(1) of the Rules of Procedure, and will weigh it along with other evidence in this case and in accordance with the rules of sound judgment. 37. With respect to the declaration of the alleged victim, the State challenged “the accuracy of Mr. [DaCosta] Cadogan’s recollection of the events surrounding his detention, discussions with his lawyer, his trial, sentence[,] and appeal.” Additionally, the State noted that there has never been a prison named “Glendairy Point,” which was referred to in paragraph 4 of Mr. Cadogan’s affidavit. Nevertheless, the State did not challenge the admissibility of this declaration, but rather the weight the Court should give it with regard to certain facts alleged. The Court therefore admits this evidence to the extent that it relates 14 Cf. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140; Case of Escher et al., supra note 6, para. 67, and Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”), supra note 6, para. 26.