27 present evidence that, in many cases, cannot be obtained without the cooperation of state authorities. 90. In the same sense, the European Human Rights Court rejected arguments filed by a State with the purpose of not sending information of a criminal case file that was open and that said Court had requested. In effect, the European Tribunal considered it insufficient to argue, inter alia, that the criminal investigation was pending and that the case file included documents classified as secret.61 91. The Tribunal points out that, previously, in a case against the State of Mexico, it had already stated that when the records of the investigation are under reservation, it corresponds to the State to send the copies requested informing of that situation and of the need, convenience, or appropriateness of maintaining the due confidentiality of that information, which will be carefully evaluated by the Tribunal, for the effects of including it into the body of evidence of the case, respecting the principle of adversarial proceedings in what corresponds.62 92. Therefore, the Court considers that the State’s negative to forward some documents cannot result in detriment of the victims. Thus, the Tribunal will consider as established the facts presented in this case by the Commission and complemented by the representatives, when they can only be invalidated through the evidence should have forwarded by refused to do so. The Court, and not the parties, shall determine the necessary quantum of evidence in each specific case. C. Assessment of the statements of the alleged victims, of the testimonial and expert evidence 93. Regarding the statements offered by the alleged victims, the witnesses, and the experts at the public hearing and through sworn statements, the Court considers them appropriate only in what they adjust to the object that was defined by the President of the Tribunal in the Order that indicated they be received (supra para. 8) and along with the other elements of the body of evidence, taking into account the observations made by the parties.63 According to the jurisprudence of this Tribunal, the statements offered by the alleged victims (infra para. 111) cannot be assessed in an isolated manner, but within the totality of the evidence of the proceedings,64 since they are useful in the measure in which they may offer more information on the alleged violations and their consequences. 61 Cf. Eur. Ct. H.R., Case of Imakayeva v. Russia, Application no. 7615/02, Judgment of 9 November 2006, paras. 122 and 123. 62 Cf. Case of González et al. (“Cotton Field”) v. Mexico, Order of the Inter-American Court, supra note 60, considering clause number sixty-one. 63 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 43; Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil, supra note 32, para. 64, and Case of Dacosta Cadogan v. Barbados, supra note 43, para. 35. The State mentioned that the statements offered by Andrea Radilla Martínez, Ana María Radilla Martínez, and José Sotelo do not adjust in some parts to the object determined through the Order of the President of the Tribunal of May 29, 2009 (supra para. 8) or they do not refer to things they know as facts. On the other hand, the representatives stated that the majority of the “diligences” described in the testimony of Mrs. Martha Patricia Valadez Sanabria are “[c]abinet statements made by Mrs. Tita Radilla.” Also with regard to that statement, they made some precisions regarding different dates on which apparently some persons were summoned to testify within preliminary inquiry SIEDF/CGI/454/07. 64 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76, para. 70; Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits,