20 50. As regards the documentary evidence submitted by the Commission and by the State, the Court accepts the documents presented, which were not contested or objected to, and, as a result, have been incorporated into the evidence. 51. Regarding the objection of the State to the statement made by Luis Alberto Cantoral-Benavides in the holding cells of the Palace of Justice on May 5, 1993, contained in the answer to the application, this Court has taken into consideration the State’s allegation that said declaration “lacks all credibility in terms of form and substance […] for example, neither the pseudo-interviewer nor the authority before whom it was given is identified.” Also, during the public hearing, Mr. CantoralBenavides was asked about said statement, to which he responded that it had been given at the holding cells of the Palace of Justice of Lima in the presence of his lawyer; his lawyer was also asked about said statement, to which he replied that he had recorded it at said holding cells, adding that “what is in the document appears to be a transcription of everything [Luis Alberto Cantoral-Benavides] said to me.” 52. This Tribunal, as it has stated on other opportunities, “uses it discretion in assessing the statements presented to it, in writing or by other means. To do this, like any other tribunal, it can make a proper assessment of the evidence following the rule of “reasoned judgment.””13 In consideration of the above and based on the preceding paragraphs, the Court incorporates into the evidence the statement made by Luis Alberto Cantoral-Benavides referred to in the preceding paragraph, which will be assessed in accordance with the rules of reasoned judgment. 53. The State also objected to the summons of the Naval Investigating Judge identified with the code number BT-10003000, who did not appear to make a statement even though he had been duly summoned. In objecting, Peru alleged that the identity of the judges that participate in trials for the crimes of treason against the fatherland and terrorism is kept secret, in accordance with domestic legislation on the matter. 54. This Court takes note of said objection. However, it holds that the parties must submit to the Tribunal any and all evidence it requests, be it documents, testimony, opinions of experts or other kinds. The States cannot use domestic considerations as a pretext for failing to comply with the demands of this Court, such as the failure of the aforementioned investigating judge to appear at the respective public audience (supra para. 30). 55. The parties, and in particular the State, must provide the Tribunal with all the evidence required –as a matter of routine, as additional evidence or at the request of a party- so that it may have as many criteria as possible for assessing and reaching sound conclusions regarding the facts. In trials dealing with violations of human rights it often happens that the claimant is not in a position to provide evidence, since same, in many cases, cannot be obtained without the cooperation of the State, which exercises control over the means necessary to clarify events that have taken place in their territories.14 13 cfr. Castillo-Páez Case, Reparations, supra note 9, para. 40; Loayza-Tamayo Case, Reparations, supra note 9, para. 57; and Paniagua-Morales et al. Case, supra note 9, para. 76. 14 cfr. Neira-Alegría et al. Case. Judgment of January 19, 1995. Series C No. 20, para. 65; Gangaram-Panday Case, supra note 11, para. 49; Godínez-Cruz Case, supra note 10, paras. 141 and 142; and Velázquez-Rodríguez Case, supra note 10, paras. 135 and 136.