A) Documentary, testimonial and expert evidence 50. The Court received various documents presented as evidence by the Inter-American Commission and the parties, attached to their main briefs (supra paras. 1, 7, 8 and 10) or in answer to the Court’s requests for helpful evidence at the public hearing, or by its President (supra paras. 15 and 16). 51. In addition, affidavits were received from: Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, Juan Ciriaco Millacheo Licán, José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán, presumed victims proposed by the FIDH; Carlos Felimer del Valle Rojas, Fabien Le Bonniec, Federico Andreu-Guzmán, expert witnesses proposed by the FIDH; Manuel Cancio Meliá, Claudio Alejandro Fierro Morales, Mauricio Alfredo Duce Julio, expert witnesses proposed by CEJIL, and Ruth Vargas Forman expert witness proposed by both common interveners; Flora Collonao Millano, Carlos Patricio Pichún Collonao, Rafael Genaro Pichún Collonao, Pascual Alejandro Pichún Collonao, Claudia Ximena Espinoza Gallardo, Soledad Angélica Millacheo Licán, Lorenza Saravia Tripaillán, Freddy Jonathan Marileo Marileo, Jovelina Rosario Ñanco Marileo, Juan Julio Millacheo Ñanco, Gloria Isabel Millacheo Ñanco, Luis Hernán Millacheo Ñanco, Zulema Marta Mariñán Millahual, Sandra Jelves Mella, Mercedes María Huenchunao Mariñán, Pablo Osvaldo Ortega Manosalva and Luis RodríguezPiñero Royo, witnesses proposed by the FIDH; Matías Ancalaf Prado and Karina del Carmen Prado Figueroa witnesses proposed by CEJIL; as well as the written statements of Rodolfo Stavenhagen expert witness proposed by the Inter-American Commission and the FIDH, and of Jan Perlin expert witness proposed by the Inter-American Commission. In addition, written statements were received from the presumed victims Segundo Aniceto Norín Catrimán and Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles required by the President of the Court ex officio. 52. Regarding the evidence provided during the public hearing, the Court received the statements of the presumed victims Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia proposed by the FIDH and Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe proposed by CEJIL; of the witnesses Juan Pichún Collonao proposed by the FIDH and Juan Domingo Acosta Sánchez proposed by the State, and of the expert witnesses Martin Scheinin proposed by both common interveners, Jorge Contesse proposed by CEJIL, and Claudio Fuentes Maureira proposed by the State. 53. The FIDH did not present eleven statements that it had proposed and that, as decided by the President of the Court (supra para. 13), should have been provided by affidavit.47 The State desisted from the statement of the witness Jaime Arellano Quintana convened by the President to testify by affidavit. B) Admission of the evidence 1. Documentary evidence 54. In the instant case, the Court grants probative value to those documents presented by the parties and the Commission at the proper procedural opportunity that were not contested or opposed, and the authenticity of which was not challenged,48 to the extent that they are pertinent and useful for determining the facts and the possible legal consequences.49 47 Testimony of Juan Carlos Huenulao Llelmil, José Necul Cariqueo, Margarita Ester Millacheo Nanco, Patricia Raquel Millacheo Nanco, Cristina Rosalía Millacheo Nanco, José Pedro Millacheo Nanco, Belén Catalina Huenchunao Reinao, Juan Lorenzo Huenchunao Santi and José Fernando Díaz Fernández, and expert opinions of Raúl David Sohr Bliss and Eduardo Mella Seguel. 48 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4 para. 140, and Case of Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname, para. 25. 49 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, para. 140, and Case of the Pacheco Tineo Family v. Bolivia. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2013. Series C No. 272, para. 45. 18