requested by the Court as helpful evidence. Therefore, the Court incorporates these annexes into the evidence file in the terms of Article 58(a) of its Rules of Procedure, and they will be assessed together with the whole body of evidence as pertinent for this case. In addition, as regards the documents that may help clarify the identity of the persons who should be included on the list of presumed victims in the case,54 the Court incorporates them into the body of evidence in keeping with Article 58(a) of its Rules of Procedure, because it considers them useful, and will assess them together with the whole body of evidence as pertinent for this case. Regarding the Colombian laws provided by the State, 55 this is incorporated into the evidence file because it relates to well-known public facts, because it is related to the helpful evidence requested by the Court, and because it is useful for deciding this case. B.2. Documentation handed over during the public hearing by two deponents and transfer of expert opinions from other cases submitted to the Court’s consideration 59. With regard to the documentation handed over during the public hearing by expert witness Jesús Alfonso Flórez López and the deponent for information purposes, Miguel Samper Strouss, entitled “Anthropological appraisal” and “The transitional justice arrangement in force in Colombia,” respectively, the Court notes that this documentation was forwarded to the parties and to the Commission. The Court admits this documentation as part of their statements, because it finds it useful for deciding this case. 60. In addition, the Court reiterates that, in its brief submitting the case, the Commission requested “the transfer of the expert opinion provided by the expert Michael Reed in the case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, as well as the expert opinion of Federico Andreu Guzmán in the cases of the Mapiripán Massacre and the La Rochela Massacre, both against Colombia.” In this regard, the President’s Order of December 19, 2013, already decided that the said documents would be incorporated into the file of this case, so that the parties have had ample before the 14th Special Prosecutor attached to the National Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit of Bogota D.C; (d) copy of the judicial inspection conducted at the scene of the murder of Marino López on April 11, 2007, by the 21st Special Prosecutor attached to the National Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit; (e) copy of the statement made by V.C. on April 11, 2007, before the 21st Special Prosecutor attached to the National Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit;(f) copy of the statement made by Luis Aristarco Hinestrosa on April 13, 2007, before the 21st Special Prosecutor attached to the National Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit; (g) copy of the expansion of the statement made by J.A.Q. Aristarco on March 3, 2007, before the 21st Special Prosecutor attached to the National Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit; (h) copy of the sworn statement made by Adan Quinto Aristarco on November 4, 2008, before the 14th Special Prosecutor of the National Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit of Bogota D.C; (i) copy of testimony given by Fredy Rendón Herrera on November 7, 2007, before the 14th Special Prosecutor of the National Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit of Bogota D.C; (j) copy of testimony given by Fredy Rendón Herrera on October 8, 2008, before the delegate Prosecutor of the National Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit of Medellin, Antioquia; (k) copy of the statement made by Luis Muentes Mendoza on August 29, 2008, before the 14th Special Prosecutor of the National Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit, and (l) copy of the statement made by Diego Luis Hinestrosa Moreno on August 29, 2008, before the 14th Special Prosecutor of the National Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit. 54 These documents are: (a) inconsistencies in the definitive list provided with the motions and arguments brief; (b) verification of victims against the National Civil Registry; (c) verification of victims against the Justice and Peace information system of the Prosecutor General’s Office; (d) list of supposed victims benefitting from precautionary measures; (e) verification against the first list presented by the Victims Unit; (f) inconsistencies in the Commission’s lists, the motions and arguments brief, and precautionary measures; (g) verification against the database of the Victims’ Attention and Reparation Unit (digital); (h) list resulting from comparing the so-called definitive list of victims of the murder of Marino López and Operation Genesis (motions and arguments brief) and the Unified List of Displaced People; (i) list of victims of Operation Genesis who are members of the communities that belong to the organization and who were not included on the list sent to the Inter-American Court (annex sent by the representatives at the time of the motions and arguments brief; (j) List. Beneficiaries of the housing project, and (k) list of the beneficiaries of projects of the Social Prosperity Department. 55 These norms are as folows: (a) Policy of attention to the Black, Afro-Colombian, Raizal and Palenquera communities: Decree law 4635 of 2011, and (b) Decision 00841 of April 26, 1999, in which collective title is awarded to 23 communities listed in the decision. 20