28 Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas’ family is made up of nine siblings: three brothers and six sisters. Before his detention, Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas lived with his mother, his son, his sister Filomena, and her son. His mother, who was ninety years old at the time of his detention, died in 1996. After the detention of the alleged victim, his son was taken to his mother’s home, where he was mistreated, which is why the witness took him back to the home of his brother Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas, where he is now being looked after by Filomena, one of Urcesino Ramírez-Rojas’ sisters. The alleged victim’s son is now seventeen yeas old, and has found many obstacles in visiting his father in the penitentiaries. Since his father’s detention, he has often been ill and has encountered great difficulty with his studies. Just like the alleged victim’s son, his brothers and sisters were affected by his detention, especially because of their fear of being detained. When the alleged victim’s next of kin visited him, they always had to undergo considerable “hostilities.” They were yelled at and threatened. During a visit to the penitentiary, his sister Marcelina was carrying a green coat, which was seized by the police, and both Marcelina and her son were detained. On the following day, the family members talked to an attorney and the police released them both. Since the detention of his brother, the witness has suffered from hypertension. C) EVIDENCE ASSESSMENT Documentary Evidence Assessment 88. In the instant case, as in others,13 the Court admits the evidentiary value of those documents which were submitted by the parties at the appropriate procedural stage, which were neither disputed nor challenged, and the authenticity of which was not questioned. 89. The Court finds it helpful to consider the documents submitted by the representatives as their closing arguments (supra para. 36), as well as the evidence to facilitate the adjudication of the instant case as requested by the Court and submitted by the representatives on November 11 and 16, 2005 (supra para. 44) and by the State on April 12, 2005 (supra para. 26) and on October 19, 2005 (supra para. 42), as they have not been challenged, and their authenticity or certainty has not been questioned. Therefore, the Court shall admit them into the body of evidence of the instant case, pursuant to Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure. 90. In turn, the State (supra para. 23) and the representatives (supra para. 21) have filed documentary evidence regarding facts and events which occurred after the submission of the application, pursuant to Article 44(3) of the Rules of Procedure, and therefore, the Court shall admit them as evidence inasmuch as they have not been challenged, their authenticity has not been questioned, and they bear relationship with this instant case. 13 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 2, para. 77; Case of Raxcacó-Reyes, supra note 10, para. 38, and Case of Gutiérrez-Soler, supra note 6, para. 43.