47 Research Council, was tendered by the State on December 20, 2000, as requested by the November 24, 2000 Court Order (supra paras. 64, 65 and 80). Since that document was requested by the Court, based on article 44 of its Rules of Procedure, it is admitted into evidence in the instant case pursuant to the provision in subparagraph one of that same norm. 97. The Court finds the three documents tendered by the Commission on January 29, 2001 (supra paras. 66 and 81) to be useful, especially since they were not disputed nor challenged, nor were their authenticity or veracity questioned. Therefore, they are admitted into evidence in the instant case. 98. The body of evidence of a case is indivisible and is formed by the evidence For this reason, the tendered throughout all stages of the proceedings.11 documentary evidence tendered by the State and by the Commission during the preliminary objections stage is admitted into evidence in the present case. 99. The State did not submit the documents requested by the Court on July 31, 2001, as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case (supra para. 69). In this regard, the Court makes the observation that the parties must submit to the Court the evidence requested by the Court, whether documents, testimony, expert opinions, or other types of evidence. The Commission and the State must supply all required evidentiary items -ex officio, as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case, or upon a request by a party- for the Court to have as many elements of judgment as possible to determine the facts and as a basis for its decisions. In this regard, it must be taken into account that in proceedings on violations of human rights it may be the case that the applicant does not have the possibility of tendering evidence which can only be obtained with the cooperation of the State.12 * * * 100. Regarding the expert opinions and testimonial evidence heard, which was neither challenged nor disputed, the Court admits it into evidence only insofar as it is in accordance with the object of the respective examination. 101. In the brief submitting its final arguments, the State expressed that: Almost all the expert witnesses presented by [t]he Commission recognized that they had no direct knowledge of the claim to ancestral lands made by the Awas Tingni Indigenous Community; in other words, they recognized that their professional opinions were based on studies carried out by other persons. The few experts presented by [t]he Commission who might have some direct knowledge of the claim to ancestral rights made by Awas Tingni, recognized the preliminary and, therefore, inconclusive nature of their essays. As those studies are not conclusive, they should not be admitted as scientific evidence to substantiate an accusation of non-titling of ancestral lands. 11 cfr. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.). Reparations (art. 63.1 American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of May 26, 2001. C Series No. 77, par 53; and Blake case. Reparations (art. 63.1 American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of January 22, 1999. C Series No. 48, para. 28. 12 cfr. Baena Ricardo et al. case, supra note 9, para. 81; Durand and Ugarte case. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series C No. 68, para. 51; and Neira Alegría et al. case. Judgment of January 19, 1995. C Series No. 20, para. 65.