Paraguayo” 17. Regarding the evidence submitted during the public hearing, the Court heard the testimony of the following persons: 1) Maximiliano Ruiz, teacher and member of the Community, alleged victim, proposed by the Commission and the representatives. He testified, inter alia, on (i) the Community’s social conditions owing to the lack of their ancestral land; (ii) current social and educational conditions in the Community; (iii) the situation of the Community’s children, and (iv) the conditions experienced on the Salazar Ranch while the members of the said Community lived there; 2) Antonia Ramirez, Community member, alleged victim, proposed by the Commission and the representatives. She testified, inter alia, on: (i) the current situation of the Community, particularly with regard to the general situation of the women and children of the Community owing to the lack of their traditional habitat, and (ii) the conditions experienced on the Salazar Ranch while the members of the said Community lived there; 3) Rodrigo Villagra Carron, doctorate in social anthropology, witness proposed by the Commission and the representatives. He testified, inter alia, on: (i) the colonization and loss of the Enxet territory; (ii) the initial process carried out by the different communities of this people to recover the said territory; (iii) the specific situation of the land claim of the Xákmok Kásek people and the applicable national laws regarding the land claims of the indigenous peoples of Paraguay, and (iv) the relationship between the current territorial claims, including that of the Xákmok Kásek, and their socio-adaptive process before the Nation-State; 4) Lidia Acuña, current President of the INDI, witness proposed by the State. She testified, inter alia, on “the steps taken to resolve the problem described by the Xákmok Kásek Community,” and 5) Fulgencio Pablo Balmaceda Rodríguez, doctor, expert witness, proposed by the Commission and the representatives. He testified, inter alia, on the health and sanitation conditions of the Community, specifically on the cause of death of those who have died. 2. Admissibility of the evidence 18. In this case, as in others,11 the Court accepts the probative value of the documents that were presented by the parties at the appropriate opportunity which were not contested or challenged, and whose authenticity was not questioned, as well as those that refer to supervening facts. 19. Regarding the testimony and the expert opinions, the Court considers them pertinent to the extent that they correspond to the purpose defined by the President in the order requiring them (supra para. 7), and they will be assessed in the corresponding chapter. With regard to the statements of the alleged victims, since they 11 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140; Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 8, para. 50, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra note 8, para. 56. 6