State responded to the questions raised by the judges during the public hearing (supra para. 10), as well as to the request for helpful evidence made by the President of the Court in notes of the Court’s Secretariat dated March 8, 2011 (supra para. 11). The Commission did not present all the information requested by the President of the Court in the said note of the Secretariat. These briefs were forwarded to the parties, who were given the opportunity to present any observations they deemed pertinent on the information and attachments forwarded in response to the requests for helpful evidence by the Court and its President (supra paras. 10 and 11). 13. On April 25, 2011, the Commission submitted its observations on new information and documents sent by the other parties, some of which had been requested by the President of the Court as helpful evidence (supra paras. 10 and 11. The representatives forwarded their observations on April 25 and May 13, 2011, while the State submitted them on May 6 and 13, 2011. Together with their observations, the representatives and the State forwarded certain new information and documentation in relation to the alleged victims in this case and, consequently, the parties were allowed to present any observations they deemed pertinent. On June 15, 2011, the Commission, the representatives and the State presented their respective observations. 14. On September 23, 2011, the President of the Court asked the Inter-American Commission, the representatives and the State to submit specific information and documentation regarding the determination of the alleged victims, as well as in relation to the evidence provided on the latter. The representatives and the State presented the requested information on September 29, 2011. The Inter-American Commission responded to this request on October 7, 2011, but did not refer to all the information that the President of the Court had required. III COMPETENCE 15. The Inter-American Court is competent to hear this case, under Article 62(3) of the Convention, because Uruguay has been a State Party to the American Convention since April 19, 1985, and accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court on the same date. IV EVIDENCE 16. Based on the provisions of Articles 46, 47 and 50 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as on its case law concerning evidence and its assessment,11 the Court will examine and assess the documentary probative elements forwarded by the parties on different procedural occasions, as well as the testimony and the expert opinions given by means of affidavits and at the public hearing before the Court, as well as the helpful evidence requested by the Court or its President (supra para. 12). To this end, the Court will abide by the principles of sound judicial discretion within the corresponding legal framework.12 A. Documentary, testimonial and expert evidence 11 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, paras. 69-76; Case of del Penal Miguel Castro Castro v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, paras. 182-185, and Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary objections, Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of 2September 6, 2006. Series C No. 154, paras. 66-70. 12 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala, supra note 11, para. 76; Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2011. Series C No. 232, para. 29, and Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2011. Series C No. 233, para. 15. 6