7. During the public hearing of the case, on February 28, 2012, the State acknowledged its responsibility for the facts described in the Commission’s Merits Report, and indicated that it had reached a friendly settlement with the representatives (infra para. 14). Consequently, the Court, in an incidental Order of February 29, 2012, revoked the time frame established for the submission of the final written arguments of the parties and the final observations of the Commission, in view of the friendly settlement agreement reached between the representatives and the State.6 III JURISDICTION 8. The Inter-American Court has jurisdiction to hear this case, pursuant to Article 62(3) of the American Convention, because Honduras has been a State Party to the Convention since September 8, 1977, and accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court on September 9, 1981. IV EVIDENCE 9. Based on the provisions Articles 46, 50, 57 and 58 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as on its case law on evidence and its assessment, the Court will examine and assess the documentary probative elements forwarded at different procedural opportunities, the statements of the presumed victims and the witnesses, and also the opinions of the expert witness provided by affidavit or during the public hearing before the Court. To this end, the Court will abide by the principles of sound judicial discretion, within the applicable legal framework.7 A) Documentary, testimonial and expert evidence 10. The Court received documents from the representatives and the State (supra paras. 1, 4, 5 and 7). In addition, during the public hearing in the case, the representatives and the State presented a friendly settlement agreement (infra para. 14). Moreover, the President incorporated the pertinent parts of the expert witness opinions provided by Carlos Tiffer Sotomayor and Reina Auxiliadora Rivera Joya in the case of Servellón García et al. v. Honduras into the body of evidence of this case, since they could be useful for deciding the case. Lastly, the Court received the affidavits of expert witnesses Marco A. Canteo and Roy Murillo, and of witnesses Renán David Galo Meza, Abencio Reyes, Aida Rodríguez, Doris Esperanza Paz, Manuel Armando Fuentes, Marlene Ardón Santos, Marta Elena Suazo, Olga María Santos, Isis Perdomo, Rómulo Emiliani and Violeta María Discua.8 Regarding the evidence provided during the public hearing, the Court received the testimony of María Oneyda Estrada Aguilar and Sandra Lorena Ramos Cárcamo, presumed victims, and of expert witnesses Celso Alvarado and Mario Luis Coriolano.9 6 Cf. Case of Pacheco Teruel et al. v. Honduras. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of February 29, 2012. Available at: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/pacheco_29_02_12.pdf. 7 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 76, and Case of Barbani Duarte et al. v. Uruguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 13, 2011. Series C. No. 234, para. 16. 8 Cf. Order in the Case of Pacheco Teruel et al., supra note 4, twenty-sixth considering paragraph and first operative paragraph. 9 Cf. Order in the Case of Pacheco Teruel et al., supra note 4, fifth operative paragraph. 6