10. Final written arguments and observations. On July 23 and 24, 2012, the State and the representatives, respectively, forwarded their final written arguments, and on July 23, 2012, the Inter-American Commission submitted its final written observations. The representatives and the State responded to the Court’s requests for useful information, documentation and explanations (supra para. 8). 11. Observations of the representatives and the State. The briefs with pleadings and motions and with final written observations were forwarded to the parties and to the InterAmerican Commission on August 1, 2012. The President gave the representatives and the State a time frame for submitting any observations they deemed pertinent on the useful evidence requested by the Court, as well as on the information and annexes submitted by the representatives and the State. On August 14 and 15, 2012, the representatives and the State, respectively, forwarded their observations on the final written arguments of the other party and on the annexes (infra paras. 21 to 24). III COMPETENCE 12. The Inter-American Court is competent to hear this case, in accordance with Article 62(3) of the Convention, because the Dominican Republic has been a State Party to the American Convention since April 19, 1978, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on March 25, 1999, while the facts of the case occurred after those dates. IV EVIDENCE 13. Based on the provisions of Articles 46, 47, 50 and 57 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as in the Court’s case law regarding evidence and its assessment,15 the Court will examine and assess the documentary evidence forwarded by the parties on different procedural occasions, the statements and testimony provided by affidavit and at the public hearing before the Court, as well as the useful evidence requested by the Court (infra para. 15). To this end, the Court will abide by the rules of sound judicial discretion, within the corresponding legal framework.16 A. Documentary, testimonial, and expert evidence 14. The Court received different documents presented as evidence by the Inter-American Commission, the representatives, and the State, attached to their main briefs (supra paras. 4, 5 and 10). The Court also received the affidavits made by the presumed victims Joseph Pierre, Sonide Nora and Joseph Desravine, and the witness Pedro Ureña. Regarding the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Court received the statements of the presumed victims Noclair Florvilien and Josier Maxime. In addition, the following expert witnesses proposed by the Commission were summoned to the public hearing, Doudou Diène, former Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and collaboration from and drafting by Emmanuel Adolfo Moreta Fermín, Fernando Roedán Hernández, Francisco José Battle Pérez, Joey Nuñez, Mariel Ortega de los Santos and Raimy Ivonne Reyes Reyes. 15 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, paras. 69 to 76, and Case of the Rio Negro Massacres v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 4, 2012. Series C No. 250, para. 40.. 16 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala, supra, para. 76, and Case of the Rio Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, supra, para. 40. 7