B. Admission of the evidence 42. In this case, as in others, the Court admits those documents submitted by the parties at the appropriate procedural opportunity that were not contested or opposed, and the authenticity of which was not questioned, exclusively insofar as they are pertinent and useful to determine the facts and eventual legal consequences.21 The State submitted the documentary evidence offered in its answering brief extemporaneously,22 two documents requested by the Court during the public hearing as useful evidence,23 and another document that had not been requested but was mentioned by the State in its final written arguments.24 However, in application of Article 58(a) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court decides to admit these documents considering them useful for deciding the instant case. In addition, when submitting the original of its final written arguments, in a “corrigenda” the representatives added a section on “Explanations regarding the list of victims submitted with this brief,” which had not been included when the said arguments were submitted electronically (supra para. 12). Since this refers to clarifications requested by the Court during the public hearing in relation to the identification and individualization of the presumed victims, the Court admits these explanations because they are useful to this end. 43. In addition, the Court finds that the statements of the presumed victims and the opinions of the expert witnesses provided by affidavit and during the public hearing are pertinent, only insofar as they are in keeping with the purpose defined by the President of the Court in the Order requiring them (supra para. 7). They will be assessed together with the other elements of the body of evidence. Furthermore, in accordance with this Court’s case law, the statements provided by the presumed victims cannot be assessed in isolation, but rather together with all the evidence in the proceedings, because they are useful to the extent that they can provide further information on the presumed violations and their consequences.25 VII PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS A. Determination of the presumed victims: 44. During the public hearing, the Court called the attention of the Inter-American Commission and the representatives to the fact that there are differences in their lists of 21 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, supra, para. 35. 22 These documents are: certified copy of the judgment of May 28, 2008, delivered in case 28-2003 by the Sentencing Court for Crime, Drug-trafficking and Offenses against the Environment of the department of Baja Verapaz; copy of the administrative files of the victims of the Community of Río Negro who have received reparation under the National Reparations Program; copy of the executive report of the Human Resettlement Program for those affected by the reservoir of the Chixoy hydroelectric plant, prepared by the National Electricity Institute (INDE), September 2004; list of “victims accepted by the State in the instant case,” and list of “victims who have received reparation under the National Reparations Program.” 23 Criminal case file 01076-2011-00009 and Criminal case file 001-98-1ro. 24 Document entitled “Informe Final de la Comisión Técnica de Apoyo al Representante del INDE ante la Instancia de Negociación que refiere el Acuerdo Político suscrito entre COCAHICH and el Gobierno de la República de Guatemala” [Final report of the Technical Committee to support the INDE representative before the Negotiating Body referred to in the Political Agreement signed between COCAHICH and the Government of the Republic of Guatemala]. 25 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 43, and Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, supra, para. 43. 18