5 will proceed to examine and assess the documentary evidence submitted by the parties at the different procedural stages. It will also examine and assess the testimonies and expert opinions provided by affidavit or before the Court in the public hearing. To that effect, the Court shall abide by the principles of sound criticism, within the corresponding legal framework.8 1. Documentary, testimonial, and expert evidence 12. The Court received the testimonies by affidavit provided by the following witnesses and expert witnesses:9 a) Ana María Ruggeri Cova, alleged victim and witness proposed by the Commission and the representative. She testified, inter alia, about the events surrounding her removal as First Court Judge, and the alleged damage suffered as a result of said removal. b) Jacqueline Ardizzone M. de Apitz, witness proposed by the representative. She testified, inter alia, about how the removal affected the health, as well as the social and family relations of her husband, Juan Carlos Apitz. c) María Costanza Cipriani de Rocha, witness proposed by the representative. She testified, inter alia, about how the removal affected the health, as well as the social and family relations of her husband, Perkins Rocha Contreras. d) Sofía Yamile Guzmán, Clerk of the Sala Político Administrativa del Tribunal Supremo de Justicia [Chamber for Political and Administrative Matters of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice]. Witness proposed by the State. She testified, inter alia, about the duration of the proceedings pending before the Chamber for Political and Administrative Matters of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice and the stages of said proceedings. e) José Leonardo Requena Cabello, Clerk of the Sala Constitucional del Tribunal Supremo de Justicia [Chamber for Constitutional Matters of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice]. Witness proposed by the State. He testified, inter alia, about the duration of the proceedings pending before the Chamber for Political and Administrative Matters of the STJ and the stages of said proceedings. f) Alexis José Crespo Daza, Judge of the Corte Segunda de lo 7 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. 50, and Case of Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, paras. 183 and 184. 8 Cf. Case of Nogueira Carvalho et al. v. Brazil, Preliminary Objections and Merits. Judgment of November 28, 2006. Series C No. 161, para. 55; Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 59, and Case of Kimel v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 2, 2008. Series C No. 177, para. 29. 9 As regards the testimony of Waleed Malik, witness proposed by the State and required under Order of the President (supra note 4), on January 28, 2008, the State filed a Communication issued by the World Bank affirming that “considering that Mr. Malik gained expertise in the Venezuelan judicial system in the performance of his official duties, and that the information he possesses is therefore archived in the files of the [World] Bank, unfortunately he will not be able to testify about the Venezuelan judicial system before the Court.” Furthermore, on January 25, 2008, the representative waived the testimony of Mr. Alfredo Romero, which had been requested in the above-mentioned Order “so as to avoid any workrelated problem,” given that Mr. Romero “is still employed by the Judiciary.”