54 92. As regards the documents requested pursuant to Article 45 of the Rules of Court, and presented by the Commission, the representatives and the State (supra para. 61), the Court observes that the parties did not provide all the documentary evidence requested for better adjudication of the case with regard to the preliminary objections and eventual merits, reparations and costs. 93. On the subject of the documents and information that the Court requested of the parties and that they did not provide, the Court notes that the parties are required to provide the Court any evidence it requests, whether it be documents, testimony, expert testimony or opinions, or evidence of any other kind. The Commission, the representatives and the State have an obligation to provide all the evidentiary materials requested for better adjudication of the case, so that the Court has the maximum amount of information and materials to enable it to ascertain the facts and arrive at a reasoned judgment. 94. As for the documents requested pursuant to Article 45 of the Rules of Court and duly provided, the Court is adding them to the body of evidence in the instant case in application of the provisions of the second paragraph of that article.49 95. Because it does not have complete information as to the identity of all the possible victims in the instant case, the Court will concentrate exclusively on the alleged victims named in the application, in the Court’s order of June 21, 2002, and in the list supplied by the Commission on November 19, 2002. The Commission’s list supplied information about the persons who were inmates at the Center in the period from August 14, 1996 to July 25, 2001. The State did not challenge the Commission’s list. Assessment of the Testimony of Witnesses and Experts. 96. Concerning the testimony of the witnesses and the opinions given by the experts in the instant case at the public hearing held at the seat of the Court on May 3 and 4, 2004 (supra para. 54), the Court is admitting those statements and opinions to the extent that they fit the purpose of the proposed examination and were not contested or disputed. 97. As stated previously (supra para. 83), this Court deems that the statements made by the next of kin of the alleged victims, who have a direct interest in this case, cannot be evaluated separately; instead, they must be evaluated within the context of the body of evidence in the case. Both for the merits and for reparations the testimony of the alleged victims’ next of kin is useful to the extent that their testimony can provide additional information on the consequences of any violations that may have been committed. 98. The Commission had advised the Court that “after the witness María Zulia Giménez testified on the ‘fires and subsequent events at the Center […], the Commission […] learned that the witness Giménez is related by kinship to one of the representatives of the [alleged] victims.” The State, for its part, “[wa]s pleased to learn that the […] Commission had investigated and confirmed the existence of a kinship relationship between Zulia [G]iménez and one of the alleged victims’ representatives.” 49 Cf. Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 26, para. 60; Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 26, para. 78; and Case of Molina Theissen, supra note 26, para. 31.