admissible. Regarding Annexes II 35 and VII36, the Court will include these pursuant to Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure, solely as information on the State’s current prison regulations. Finally, the Court admits Annexes X to XV, 37 related to vouchers for expenses and fees allegedly incurred by the representatives to attend the proceeding before the Court, for airline tickets and accommodation, without prejudice to the corresponding assessment made of their evidentiary weight in the section on costs and expenses. Regarding Annex VIII, 38 the Court points out that this document does not have evidentiary value, but is considered as part of the arguments regarding the “breakdown and details” of the amount requested as pecuniary compensation in the final written arguments of the representatives. B. 2) Admission of the testimonial and expert evidence 34. In relation to the statements rendered by affidavit and those provided during the public hearing, the Court admits these insofar as they relate to the object defined by the President of the Court in the Order that required them (supra para. 10) and to the purpose of this case. 35. Regarding the testimony of Mrs. Vicenta Tzamol Navichoc, rendered by affidavit and provided by the State, the representatives argued that it was irrelevant because she was not acting as director of the COF at the time of the facts. The Court considers that such observations refer to the evidentiary value or weight of that statement, but do not affect its admissibility. C. Assessment of the evidence 36. Based on Articles 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 57 and 58 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as on its case law concerning evidence and its assessment,39 the Court will examine and assess the documentary evidence forwarded by the parties at the proper procedural moments, together with the statements, opinions and testimonies rendered in a sworn statement before a notary public (affidavit) and during the public hearing. To this end, the Court will abide by the principles of sound judicial discretion, within the corresponding legal framework, taking into account the entire body of evidence in the case.40 Likewise, the statements rendered by the alleged victims cannot be assessed in isolation, but must be considered within the context of Annex II is the first report of the Observatorio Guatemalteco de Cárceles (Guatemalan Prisons Observatory) of the Human Rights Ombudsman of 2004, which “offers a systematic assessment of the Guatemalan prison system from a human rights perspective.” 35 Annex VII is the Preliminary Report on Monitoring Access to the Human Right to Health of Detainees in the Prisons of the Department of Guatemala prepared by the General Directorate of the Prison System in the Department of Guatemala, on May 22 and 25, 2015. 36 Annex XV is a breakdown of the total amount disbursed for professional legal counseling services by the Association of the Institute for Comparative Studies in Criminal Sciences of Guatemala during the proceeding before the Inter-American System in the case of María Inés Chinchilla Sandoval et al. against Guatemala. 37 Annex VIII is a report entitled “Daño Emergente, Lucro Cesante y Reparación Digna” prepared by Juan Diego Velásquez Vargas. 38 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. 51, and Case of Velásquez Paiz et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 39. 39 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and costs, supra, para. 76; and Case of Quispialaya Vilcapoma v. Peru, supra, para. 24. 40 15