Carlos Eaton’s proposal […] to assume the transportation and accommodation expenses of the [said deponents], so that they could provide their version of the issues involved, in the presence of a notary public, who would guarantee that the statements were free and spontaneous.” It also indicated that “this fact was not communicated to the organization Tierraviva, because the proposed [alleged] victims proceeded to give statements in documents that they themselves had prepared and signed.” It concluded by indicating that “[a]t most, the problem was one of poor communication because having Mr. Eaton as an intermediary gave rise to some distrust among the indigenous people, which [was] unfounded.” The State clarified that it had not “intimidated the [alleged] victims” and had not “entered into alliances with any of the parties to the dispute.” Lastly, it indicated that it withdrew the said statements it had offered. 11. The public hearing took place on April 14, 2010, during the forty-first special session held in Lima, Republic of Peru.7 12. On May 4, 2010, on the instructions of the President, the State, the Commission and the representatives were required to provide specific documentary evidence. 13. On May 24, 2010, the Commission and the representatives, and on May 25, 2010, the State, forwarded their respective briefs with final arguments. The Commission, the State and the representatives presented part of the documentary evidence requested. In addition, the representatives attached several documents to the brief with final arguments. III COMPETENCE 14. The Court has competence to hear this case, pursuant to Article 62(3) of the American Convention, because Paraguay has been a State Party to the Convention since August 24, 1989, and accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on March 11, 1993. IV EVIDENCE 15. Based on the provisions of Articles 46 and 47 of the Rules of Procedure applicable to this case, as well as on the Court’s case law regarding evidence and its assessment,8 the Court will examine and evaluate the documentary probative elements submitted by the parties at different procedural stages, as well as the testimony 7 There appeared at this hearing: (a) for the Inter-American Commission: María Silva Guillén, Commissioner; Elizabeth Abi-Mershed, Deputy Executive Secretary; Karla I. Quintana Osuna, adviser, and Federico Guzmán, adviser; (b) for the alleged victims: Julia Cabello Alonso, representative; Oscar Ayala Amarilla, representative and, Nicolás Soemer, assistant, and (c) for the State: Modesto Luis Guggiari, Ambassador of the Republic of Paraguay to Peru; Inés Martínez Valinotti, Alternate Agent and Director of Human Rights of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Abraham Franco Galeano, delegate attorney of the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic. 8 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 50; Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of May 25, 2010. Series C No. 212, para. 47, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of May 26, 2010. Series C No. 213, para. 53. 4