8 emotional damage suffered by Mr. Bueno-Alves as a result of the alleged torture and violations of the right to a fair trial and to judicial protection; the impairment of his daily life and work, and the treatment he has needed and would need to mitigate, overcome, or reduce those damages, pain, or suffering. c) Doctor Jorge Alberto Caride: he declared on Mr. Bueno-Alves’ health condition; his clinical history; the evolution of the situation of the alleged victim since the expert witness met him; the consequences of the facts claimed on his daily life and that of his family; the treatment required and its duration, and his conclusions based on the treatment he has given him. B) Evidence Assessment 38. In this case, as in others,18 the Court recognizes the evidentiary value of the documents submitted by the parties at the appropriate procedural stage, which have neither been contested nor challenged, and the authenticity of which has not been questioned. 39. Regarding the documents submitted as evidence to facilitate the adjudication of the case (supra para. 15), the Court admits them into the body of evidence of the instant case, pursuant to the provisions of Article 45(2) of the Rules of Procedure. 40. As to the documents and information requested from the parties (supra paras. 10 and 15), which have not been submitted, the Court observes that the parties must lodge with the Court the evidence so requested. In particular, the President ordered that the statement offered by Mr. Bueno-Alves before a notary public (supra para. 10) be admitted. This statement should have been submitted by the Commission, as it requested said evidence. The lack of the aforementioned statement prevented the Court from having the necessary elements for the analysis of the alleged violations. 41. The Commission, upon the representative’s request, offered new documents regarding the proceeding started before it. The Court admits this evidence since it considers it useful. 42. Besides the documents submitted as annexes to the brief of requests and arguments, the representative filed additional evidence on several opportunities throughout the proceedings conducted before the Court. The representative, submitted, inter alia: i) copies of documents attached to case file No. 6229/06 regarding a claim for missing documents in case No. 24.519, as well as copies of documents pertaining to the proceedings before the Commission; ii) a certified copy of the psychiatric report of Mr. Bueno-Alves issued by Doctor Jorge A. Caride on August 9, 2000; iii) a copy of the claim of November 16, 2006 lodged by the representative before the Public Prosecutor’s Office for the alleged threats against her. In said claim the representative argued that the death of Alejandro Gastón Oberlander, Mr. Bueno-Alves’ attending physician, occurred “under suspicious circumstances;” iv) a copy of the evaluation performed by Doctor Jorge A. Caride on November 22, 2006, according to which due to his health condition, Mr. Bueno-Alves cannot attend the public hearing called in the instant case, and copies of documents pertaining to the proceedings before the Commission; v) information regarding the admission of Mr. Bueno-Alves to a private clinic “due to a worsening of his Depressive Disorder;” and vi) 18 Cf. Case of La Cantuta, supra note 14, para. 62; Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison, supra note 14, para. 188, and Case of Nogueira-Carvalho et al., supra note 17, para. 58.