11 Procedure, which have not been disputed or objected nor their authenticity or veracity questioned. 27. As to the testimonies, statements for informative purposes and expert opinions rendered by witnesses and expert witnesses by means of affidavits and at public hearings, which the parties did not challenge, the Court deems they are appropriate inasmuch as they adjust to the purpose defined by the Tribunal in the Order by means of which such evidence was requested (supra para. 7) and it shall assess them on the basis of the body of evidence and sound judgment rules. The Court points out that the statements rendered by the alleged victims cannot be assessed separately for they have a direct interest in the outcome of the case, and therefore, must be assessed as a whole with the rest of the body of evidence of the proceedings and according to the sound judgment rules. 28. In the application, the Commission requested the Court to order the State "the presentation of complete and certified copies of case-file 2027-98 that is being processed before the 66° Specialized Civil Court of Lima". Moreover, the State required the Court to declare the Commission’s request to be inadmissible “since it does not relate to the case at hand”. In such regards, the Court notes that the body of evidence, which is a constituent part of case-file before it, is enough to solve the disputes put forward in the case at hand (supra paras. 1 to 5), and therefore the Court considered it was unnecessary to require such documentation. 29. Moreover, the representative and the State tendered evidence together with their observations to the sworn statements (affidavits) rendered in the instant case.16 The Tribunal notes that, even though said items of evidence tendered by the representative were forwarded after the presentation of the brief of pleadings and motions (supra para. 8), it is related to a supervening fact that did not exist at the moment of the submission of said brief. Besides, the Court notes that the evidence tendered by the State consists of several Orders and briefs that were issued, notified or presented between the months of December, 2008 and January, 2009, that is to say, after the presentation's date of the response to the application or that they are related to such supervening facts. Besides, the Court notes that said evidence was not challenged by the parties (supra paras. 8, 9 and 10), and that it is useful and appropriate for the determination of the facts of the case at hand. Therefore, in accordance with Article 44(3) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal admits it into the body of evidence to assess it according to the rules of sound judgment. 30. The State challenged the statement rendered by Flavia Marco Navarro due to the fact that "she does not meet the requisites of competence, suitability or specialty to act in the capacity as expert witness in relation to the aspects defined as subject-matter of the expert assessment […] ], since far from referring to [said] subject-matter […] she refers to totally different issues”. The Court has verified, after seen the resume of the expert witness Flavia Marco Navarro, that she presents herself as an expert in social security affairs and that she rendered 16 The representative tendered the following evidence: a) Order issued by the Sixth Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima, of November 27, 2008 and notified to the Association of Discharged and Retired Employees on January 8, 2009; b) copy of Acts N°. 28046 and 28047, mentioned in said Order of November 27, 2008; c) copy of the Rules of Procedure of Act N° 28046, also related to Order of November 27, 2008 and d) copy of the judgment rendered by the Constitutional Court of Perú, dated September 20, 2004, mentioned by the Sixth Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima in its Order of November 27, 2008. In addition, the State tendered the following evidence: Order N° 266, of July 1, 2008 (notified on December 24, 2008); 3.2) Order N° 291, of December 12, 2008; Order N° 296, of December 30, 2008; Order N° 298, of January 9, 2009; Brief of January 13, 2009, presented by the Public Attorney General of the Comptroller General of the Republic; Order N° 299, of January 14, 2009 and Order N° 300, of January 15, 2009.