15 IV COMPETENCE 63. The Court has competence to hear this case in the terms of Article 62(3) of the Convention. The State of Panama ratified the American Convention on June 22, 1978, and it entered into force for the State on July 18, 1978. On May 9, 1990, the State recognized “as binding, ipso facto, the competence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on all matters relating to the interpretation or application of the American Convention […].” The State also ratified the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture on August 28, 1991, and the Inter-American Convention on Forced Disappearance of Persons on February 28, 1996. They entered into force for the State on September 28, 1991, and March 28, 1996, respectively. V EVIDENCE 64. Based on the provisions of Articles 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure, and on the Court’s case law regarding evidence and its assessment,24 the Court will proceed to examine and assess the documentary probative elements forwarded by the Commission, the representatives and the State on different procedural occasions or as helpful evidence that was requested by the President and the Court, as well as the sworn testimonial statements and expert opinions rendered before notary public (affidavits) or at the public hearing before the Court. In this regard, the Court will observe the principles of sound judicial discretion within the corresponding legal framework.25 A) DOCUMENTARY, TESTIMONIAL AND EXPERT EVIDENCE 65. At the request of the Court and of the President,26 the Court received the statements and expert opinions rendered before notary public (affidavits) of the following witnesses and expert witnesses:27 (a) Graciela De León Rodríguez, witness proposed by the Commission and the representatives, was the alleged victim’s companion. She testified on the different measures that she and her family took to discover the truth of what happened to Heliodoro Portugal; the State’s response in this regard; the alleged obstacles faced by the family in their search for justice in the case and in the finding and identification of Heliodoro Portugal’s remains, as well as the consequences on her personal life and on that of her family of the alleged disappearance of Heliodoro Portugal and the presumed lack of justice in that regard; (b) Franklin Portugal, witness proposed by the Commission and the representatives, is the alleged victim’s son and his testimony referred to the 24 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.), supra note 18, para. 50; Yvon Neptune v. Haiti. Merits, reparations, and costs. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 180, para. 22, and Case of Salvador Chiriboga, supra note 6, para. 18. 25 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.), supra note 18, para. 76; Case of the Saramaka People, supra note 6, para. 63, and Case of Albán Cornejo et al., supra note 22, para. 26. 26 Order issued by the Inter-American Court, supra note 3 and Order issued by the President of the InterAmerican Court, supra note 4. 27 In their communications of January 9, 2008, the Inter-American Commission and the representatives informed the Court that they desisted from offering the testimony of Terry Melton.