C. - Admission of the statements of the alleged victims and of the testimonial and expert evidence 28. The Court also admits as evidence the statements and expert opinions rendered by the alleged victims and expert witnesses at the public hearing and through affidavits, which shall be assessed in conjunction with the other evidentiary elements.19 29. As to the affidavits submitted by the State, the Court notes that these do not contain answers to the questions raised by the representatives and duly admitted by the President (supra para. 14). Thus, the Court concludes that, although these were offered by the State, it did not comply with its obligation to coordinate and implement the necessary measures to convey the questions to the deponents and include the relevant answers. Such conduct is incompatible with the duty of procedural cooperation and with the principle of good faith which govern international proceedings.20 30. Furthermore, the Court takes note of the assertion made by the representatives, which was not refuted by the State, that several Venezuelan public notaries refused to take affidavits from witnesses and expert witnesses whose sworn statements were requested by Order of the President (supra para. 14). Based on its Rules of Procedure,21 the Court deems such actions improper, given the failure to provide evidence required by the Court.22 D. - Assessment of the file on provisional measures 31. On November 25, 2002 the Commission submitted to the consideration of the Court a request for provisional measures in favor of Luis Enrique Uzcátegui Jiménez 23, which were ordered on November 27, 200224 and are still in force.25 32. In their brief of pleadings and motions, the representatives asked the Court to “take judicial notice” of the file of provisional measures ordered in favor of Luis Enrique 19 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 43 and Case of Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, para. 43. 20 Cf. Case Cantoral Benavides v. Peru. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 3, 1998. Series C No. 40, para. 30, and Case of Díaz Peña V. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 26, 2012. Series C No. 244, para. 33. 21 Article 26 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. 22 Cf. Case of Perozo et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 195, para. 99 and Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court for Administrative Matters”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No. 182, para. 14. 23 Articles 63(2) of the Convention and 25 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, then in force. 24 Cf. Matter of Luis Uzcátegui and relatives regarding Venezuela. Provisional Measures. Order of the Court of November 27, 2002. Available at http://www.Corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/Uzcátegui_se_01.pdf 25 Through the Orders of February 20, 2003, December 2, 2003, May 4, 2004 and January 27, 2009, the Court extended and ratified the Provisional Measures regarding Luis Uzcátegui and family members. Available at http://www.Corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/Uzcátegui_se_02.pdf http://www.Corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/Uzcátegui_se_03.doc http://www.Corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/venezuela_se_016.doc http://www.Corteidh.or.cr/docs/medidas/Uzcátegui_se_04.doc 9