9 38. Also, during the public hearing (supra para. 8), the State’s Deputy Agent declared, inter alia, that: If Mr. Lapo, if Mr. Chaparro, through their representative, prove that a certain type of possession protected by their right to property has been harmed, the Ecuadorean State, in good faith, is willing to acknowledge such harm, provided it is supported by an expert report, duly prepared by an impartial professional who is an expert on these matters. We consider it premature for the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to rule on the type of claims made by the representative of the alleged victims, because the views contained in his written brief containing pleadings, motions and evidence are not duly supported by the impartial opinion of an expert, who should be appointed to establish possible losses, which, if verified, must be recognized by the Ecuadorean State. […] If the Inter-American Court attributes responsibility to the Ecuadorean State in relation to Article 21 of the Convention, we demand that this should be based on an expert report duly prepared by a qualified person who has no relationship of any kind to the parties to this case. 39. In view of the above, the President, in consultation with the other judges of the Court and in accordance with Article 45 of the Rules of Procedure, requested the State and the representatives to each submit a list of professionals, experts in evaluating losses, so that the President could select an expert from each list to evaluate the possible pecuniary losses that the facts of this case had allegedly caused to Messrs. Chaparro and Lapo. He also advised the parties that, since the preparation of the expert report responded to a request by the State, the State was responsible for covering all the costs involved in its preparation, pursuant to Article 46 of the Rules of Procedure. 40. Subsequently, the State sent two communications to the Court19 in which it indicated that the Court had misinterpreted its Agent’s statements. According to the State, it had not proposed or requested an expert report, so that “it [would] not assume the costs required by the preparation of this evidence.” 41. On July 17, 2007, based on the State’s refusal to cover the costs of the evidence it had requested, the Court decided that it was not necessary to proceed to appoint independent experts, and that it would deliver judgment based on the evidence submitted by the parties. B) ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE 42. In this case, as in others,20 the Court admits the probative value of those documents presented by the parties at the appropriate procedural opportunity that were not contested or opposed, and whose authenticity was not questioned. Regarding the documents forwarded as helpful evidence (supra paras. 9 and 11), the Court incorporates them into the body of evidence in this case, in accordance with Article 45(2) of the Rules of Procedure. However, it notes that the State forwarded the evidence requested (supra paras. 8 and 9) with a delay of one month. The Court recalls that the parties must submit the evidence that the Court requests so that it has as many probative elements as possible when examining the facts and to justify its decisions.21 19 Official communication No. 001876 of May 30, 2007 (file on merits, volume II, folios 560 to 562) and official communication No. 2062 of June 11, 2007, received on June 12, 2007 (file on merits, volume II, folios 762). 20 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140; Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, para. 41, and Case of Zambrano Vélez et al., supra note 13, para. 37. 21 Cf. Case of Zambrano Vélez et al., supra note 13, para. 33.