11 locate him and the situation of the family after he disappeared, for which he made a detailed description of the economic, financial and physical impairments he went through as of the disappearance of Renato. Moreover, he referred to the lack of measures of reparations at the domestic level. B) Evidence Assessment 34. In the case at hand, as in many other cases16, the Court admits the evidentiary value of such documents forwarded by the parties in the procedural stage that have not been disputed nor challenged, or its authenticy questioned. In relation to the documents forwarded as evidence to facilitate the adjudication of the case (supra, para. 10), the Court admits them into the body of evidence, pursuant to the provisions of Article 45(2) of the Rules of Procedure. 35. Furthermore, the Tribunal admits the documents furnished by the representative together with the brief containing observations to the acquiescence and the documents furnished by the State during the public hearing, since it deems they are useful for the resolution of the instant case and have not been challenged nor its authenticity questioned. 36. As to the additional documents forwarded by the State together with the final written arguments, that is, the documents presented by the State on November 5, 12 and 18, 2008, as well as the briefs presented by the representatives and the Commission on November 12 and 18, 2008, the Tribunal admits them since it considers they could be useful for the instant case. 37. In relation to the statements rendered by Honoria Estrada de Ticona (supra para. 32(a)), César Ticona Olivares (supra para. 32(b)), Rodo Ticona (supra para. 32(c)), and Betzy Ticona (supra para. 32(d)), about which the State made some objections to the questions and answers “since they refer to the investigations in relation to the torture of Hugo Ticona Estrada due to the fact that the State does not consider them relevant for the purpose of the proceeding", the Court shall determine in the corresponding section of Chapter VII whether the investigations conducted as a result of the alleged torture of Hugo Ticona become part of this proceeding and, if applicable, shall assess said testimonies on the basis of sound judgment, as long as they adjust to the purpose defined in the Order of the President of June 9, 2008 (supra note 5). Furthermore, this Tribunal notes that the testimonial statements must be assessed together with all the evidence in the case and not in isolation, since the victims or their next-of kin have a direct interest in the case. 17. 38. Regarding the expert opinion jointly rendered by Andrés Guatire Hirsch and Zulema Callejas Guzmán (supra para. 32(e)) and the expert opinion rendered by Rosario Baptista Canedo (supra para. 32(g)), the State challenged them upon considering that said testimonial evidence was "introduced outside the procedure", given the fact that such opinions were rendered prior to the filing of the 16 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C Nº 4 para. 140; Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panamá, supra note 13, para. 27; and Case of Bayarri v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of October 30, 2008. Series C Nº 187, para. 35. 17 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Perú. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C. Nº 33, para. 43; Case of Castañeda Gutman v. México. Preliminary Objections, Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C Nº 184, para. 72; and Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panamá, supra note 13, para. 68.