40 consultation and civil service chamber. The following actions may be filed in this jurisdiction: for annulment, for annulment and re-establishment of the right, direct reparation and contractual reparation. When referring to a reasonable time in this jurisdiction, it is important to take into account the workload of the judges of the administrative courts. The conciliation mechanism, as an alternate method of settling disputes, has had some success in alleviating the heavy congestion. Conciliation is established not only in the administrative jurisdiction, but also in the criminal jurisdiction. In the case of human rights, conciliation has the effect of res judicata. With regard to decisions on direct reparation for illegal damage, under current legislation the judges of the administrative jurisdiction face several barriers to ruling outside the framework of the claims formulated, but case law is opening up the way to do so. Non-pecuniary reparations may be ordered by way of the action for direct reparation, according to the Constitution, respecting the parameters of international legislation on the integral reparation of damage. The expert witness does not know of any judgment of the Council of State in which the investigation, prosecution and sanction of those responsible for human rights violations has been ordered. The average duration of the action for direct reparation is from five to seven years. On appeal, proceedings may take from four to eight years on average. Owing to the length of the judicial delay, the Council of State has formed a legislative committee to review the Code of Administrative Law. In an administrative action for direct reparation, the administrative courts are not able to order non-repetition of the conduct that violates human rights, or the criminal prosecution of the perpetrators or, among other measures, non-pecuniary reparation, or the erection of monuments. However, the expert witness considers that the legal scenario is ready to take this route, although this has not yet occurred. C) ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE Assessment of the documentary evidence 112. In this case as in others,31 the Court accepts the probative value of the documents presented by the parties at the proper procedural opportunity or as helpful evidence in accordance with Article 45(2) of its Rules of Procedure, which were not contested or opposed, and whose authenticity was not questioned. 113. Regarding the statements made before notary public by the witnesses and expert witnesses proposed by the parties (supra para. 110), in accordance with the provisions of Article 47(3) of the Rules of Procedure and as requested by the President in his orders of July 28, 2005, and August 19, 2005 (supra paras. 23 and 28), the Court admits them to the extent they are in keeping with the purpose established in the orders and assesses them with the body of evidence, applying the 31 Cf. Case of Baldeón García, supra note 5, para. 65; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community, supra note 9, para. 36; and Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al., supra note 12, para. 189.