B.2 Admission of the testimonial and expert evidence 23. The Court finds it pertinent to admit the testimony provided during the public hearing and by affidavit, as well as the statements offered and received as a result of the on-site procedure in the alleged territories of the Kaliña and Lokono peoples, insofar as they are in keeping with the purpose defined by the President in the order requiring them, as well as the purpose of this case and the visit that was made (supra paras. 14 and 20). C. Assessment of the evidence 24. Based on its consistent case law concerning evidence and its assessment,24 the Court will examine and assess the documentary probative elements submitted by the parties and the Commission, the statements, testimony and expert opinions, and also the helpful evidence requested and incorporated by this Court, when establishing the facts of the case and ruling on the merits. To this end, it will abide by the principles of sound judicial discretion, within the corresponding legal framework, taking into account the body of evidence, and the arguments that have been submitted.25 25. Furthermore, pursuant to the Court’s case law, the statements made by the alleged victims cannot be assessed in isolation, but rather within the body of evidence in the proceedings, insofar as such statements may provide further information on the presumed violations and their consequences.26 26. With regard to the on-site procedure (supra para. 14) aimed at obtaining additional information on the situation of the alleged victims and the places in which some of the facts alleged in the case took place, the statements, documents, and information received will be assessed bearing in mind the particular circumstances in which they were produced.27 In this regard, the Court incorporated into the case file the video containing the recordings made by the State during the on-site procedure and forwarded a copy of this to the parties. 27. The Court notes that Suriname sent scanned copies of the title records of the Domains Office in Dutch (supra para. 22), and this evidence has been contested by the representatives. However, the Court underlines that, this information merely reveals, in some cases, the names of those who possess the said titles, and the location in the Tuinstad Albina subdivision project.28 Thus, the Court will examine this information, provided it can clearly establish its usefulness. In addition, the Court will examine this information, as well all the documentation provide as helpful evidence, together with the observations of the parties on the visit, bearing in mind the rules of 24 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, paras. 69 to 76, and Case of López Lone et al., supra, para. 40. 25 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, supra, para. 76, and Case of López Lone et al., supra, para. 40. 26 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 43, and Case of López Lone et al., supra, para. 41. 27 Cf. Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of June 27, 2012. Series C No. 245, para. 49, and Case of the Garífuna Community of Punta Piedra and its members v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 8, 2015. Series C No. 304, para. 79. 28 The Court requested information on the titling of lands in favor of third parties on three occasions (infra, para. 264). Finally, the State provided this, in Dutch, and in a way that was unclear, imprecise and unintelligible, because it provided scanned copies of the handwritten records of the Domains Office, many of which could not been seen clearly owing to the quality of the image. Also, some of them only permitted the name of the titleholder and the location of the lot within the Tuinstad Albina Project to be identified. Similarly, the map of this project sent by the State, the numbers on which are mentioned in the title records, appears to show that the land has been divided into 73 lots (evidence file, annexes 7b, 7c and 7d, folios 3078 to 3230). 12