19 Documentary Evidence Assessment 43. In the instant case, as in others,4 the Court recognizes the evidentiary value of the documents submitted by the parties at the appropriate procedural time or as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case pursuant to Article 45 of the Rules of Procedure, which have not been disputed nor challenged, and whose authenticity has not been questioned. 44. In the instant case, the State offered expert testimony on April 21, 2005; that is, over fourth months after the expiration of the time period for filing the answer to the application, which is the opportunity to tender evidence, as provided by Article 44(1) of the Rules of Procedure. This testimony was challenged by the Commission as well as by the representatives. However, in the Order dated May 25, 2005, the President considered helpful, in accordance with Article 45 of the Rules of Procedure, to hear the testimony of four people proposed by the State; therefore, the President ordered that three of them render sworn statements before a public official whose acts command full faith and credit ─and that the fourth person render testimony at the public hearing (supra para. 24)─ as lay witnesses rather than as expert witnesses insofar as their testimony was related to questions of fact involved in the instant case. In spite of the foregoing, the State failed to produce such sworn statements. 45. Concerning the sworn statements given before a public official whose acts command full faith and credit by witnesses Carlos Paz, proposed by the Commission and the representatives, and Gisela Romero, Raquel Romero, Edgar Román Arias, Alfredo Enrique Vásquez-Loureda, Oswaldo José Domínguez-Florido and Raúl CubasLisandro, proposed by the representatives, as well as by expert witnesses Jesús María Casal-Hernández and Magdalena López de Ibáñez, proposed by the Commission and the representatives, and Fernando Fernández, Claudia E. Carrillo R. and René Molina-Galicia, proposed by the representatives (supra para. 41), the Court admits them to the extent they conform to the subject-matter set forth in the Order of the President issued on May 25, 2005 (supra para. 24) and recognizes their evidentiary value and assesses them as a whole with the rest of the body of evidence, applying thereto the standards of reasonable credit and weight analysis and taking into account the acquiescence of the State to the claim. As this Court has established, the statements by the alleged victims and their next of kin may not be assessed separately, insofar as they have a direct interest in the instant case; rather, they must be assessed as a whole with the rest of the body of evidence in the case as they may provide helpful information about the alleged violations and their consequences.5 46. The Court finds that the documents submitted by the State at the public hearing (supra para. 27), which have not been challenged or contested and whose authenticity has not been questioned, are helpful; therefore, the Court incorporates them to the body of evidence, pursuant to Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure.6 4 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 1, para. 77; Case of Raxcacó-Reyes, supra note 1, para. 38; and Case of Gutiérrez-Soler, supra note 1, para. 43. 5 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 1, para. 81; Case of Raxcacó-Reyes, supra note 1, para. 39; and Case of Gutiérrez-Soler, supra note 1, para. 45. 6 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 1, para. 87; Case of Raxcacó-Reyes, supra note 1, para. 41; and Case of Gutiérrez-Soler, supra note 1, para. 44.