12 38. In this case, as in others,3 the Court accepts the probative value of the documents presented by the parties at the proper procedural opportunity that were not contested or opposed, and whose authenticity was not questioned. 39. With regard to the statement made by the alleged victim (supra para. 37(a)), the Court admits it to the extent that it corresponds to the purpose established in the order of May 4, 2005 (supra para. 21). In this regard, since the alleged victim has a direct interest in the case, his statement must be assessed together with all the evidence in the proceedings and not in isolation, applying the rules of sound criticism.4 40. In relation to the statements made before notary public (affidavits) by the witnesses, Reyes Ovidio Girón Vásquez, Conchita Mazariegos Tobías and Eduardo Zachrisson Castillo, and also the expert witnesses, Alberto Martín Binder and Aída Castro-Cónde (supra para. 37(b), (c), (d), (e) and (f)), the Court admits them to the extent that they correspond to their purpose and assesses them together with all the evidence applying the rules of sound criticism. 41. The Court considers that the documents provided by the representatives with their final written arguments (supra para. 27) are useful for deciding the instant case, to the extent that they were not contested or opposed, and their authenticity was not questioned. Consequently, it adds them to the body of evidence, pursuant to Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure.5 42. With regard to the documents requested and submitted as helpful evidence (supra paras. 28 and 29), the Court adds them to the body of evidence of the instant case in application of the provisions of Article 45(2) of the Rules of Procedure. VII PROVEN FACTS 43. Having examined the evidence, the statements of the witnesses and expert witnesses, and the arguments of the Inter-American Commission, the representatives, and the State, the Court considers that the following facts have been proved: Background elements: the definition of the crime of kidnapping or abduction 43(1) When Guatemala deposited the instrument ratifying the American Convention, Legislative Decree No. 17/73 (Penal Code) was in force. Article 201 of the Code established the death penalty as the punishment for the crime of kidnapping or abduction when the person kidnapped died, owing to the kidnapping or during it. The same crime, which did not result in death, was punished by 8 to 15 years of imprisonment: 3 Cf. Case of Acosta Calderón, supra note 1, para. 45; Case of Yatama, supra note 1, para. 112, and Case of Fermín Ramírez, supra note 1, para. 48. 4 Cf. Case of Yatama, supra note 1, para. 122; Case of Fermín Ramírez, supra note 1, para. 49, and Case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, para. 43. 5 Cf. Case of Yatama, supra note 1, para. 118; Case of Fermín Ramírez, supra note 1, para. 52, and Case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa, supra note 4, para. 42.