23 requested. Since this documentation is useful for deciding the instant case, it is admitted as helpful evidence in accordance with Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure. 45. The Court also incorporates into the body of evidence in this case, the Report of the Historical Clarification Commission, “Guatemala, Memoria del Silencio” (hereinafter “HCC Report”), considering it a document of acknowledged historical value, useful for deciding this case; it is added to the body of evidence in accordance with Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure. Assessment of the Testimonial and Expert Evidence 46. The Court admits the statements made at the public hearing by Juan Manuel Jerónimo, Buenaventura Manuel Jerónimo and Narcisa Corazón Jerónimo (supra paras. 14 and 38(a), 38(b) and 38(c)), insofar as they correspond to the purpose of the assessment, and considers them together with the body of evidence. The Court considers that, as they are victims and have a direct interest in the case, their statements must be assessed together with all the evidence in the proceeding and not in isolation. The statements of the victims are particularly useful insofar as they can provide more information on the consequences of the violations that may have been perpetrated against them.15 47. With regard to the reports of the expert witnesses, Augusto Willemsen-Díaz and Nieves Gómez Dupuis (supra paras. 14 and 38(d) and 38(e)), which were not opposed or contested, the Court admits them and assesses them with the body of evidence, applying the rules of sound criticism. 48. In light of the above, the Court will assess the probative value of the documents, statements and expert reports presented in writing or made before it. The evidence presented during the proceeding has been incorporated into a single body of evidence, which is considered as a whole.16 VII PROVEN FACTS 49. The facts established in the judgment on merits delivered by this Court on April 29, 2004 (supra para. 18), are deemed incorporated into the instant judgment; some of them have been reconsidered in this judgment. The Court considers that the following facts have been proven. Regarding the Plan de Sánchez village 15 Cf. Case of Tibi, supra note 3, para. 86; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 3, para. 97, and Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 3, para. 66. 16 Cf. Case of Tibi, supra note 3, para. 89; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 3, para. 100, and Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 3, para. 68.