25 C) 73. Evidence Assessment In this section, the Court shall assess the body of evidence submitted to it. 74. In the instant case, as in others,17 the Court recognizes the evidentiary value of the documents submitted by the parties at the appropriate procedural stage, which have neither been disputed nor challenged, and whose authenticity has not been questioned. 75. With regard to the statement rendered by Cristián Correa-Montt (supra para. 21), the Court admits it insofar as it addresses its purpose, as stated in Order of the Court of February 7, 2006 (supra para. 20), taking into account the observations made by the representative (supra para. 24) and by the Commission (supra para. 26). In addition, the Court admits the documents submitted by Mr. Correa-Montt together with his statement, and assesses them as part of the body of evidence, on the basis of sound judgment. 76. As regards the statement of expert witness Cristián Maturana-Miquel (supra para. 29), the Court endorses the considerations of the Inter-American Commission (supra para. 32), in that such statement addresses issues that go beyond the scope of the purpose for which it was required under Order of the President of the Court of March 24, 2006 (supra para. 27). Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Court admits it inasmuch as it deems it useful for adjudicating the instant case, and assesses it as part of the body of evidence, on the basis of sound judgment, taking into account the observations made by the Commission, and those made by the State in that regard (supra para. 37). 77. Even though the two statements mentioned in the previous paragraphs were submitted to a notary public to have their authors’ signatures acknowledged and thus they are not formally affidavits, the Court accepts them inasmuch as no harm has been done to legal certainty or to the procedural equality between the parties. 78. As regards the statements made at the public hearing by witness Jorge CorreaSutil and by expert witnesses Raúl Ignacio Nogueira-Alcala and Jean Pierre MatusAcuña, the Court admits them insofar as they address their purpose as stated in Orders of February 7 (supra para. 20) and March 24, 2006 (supra para. 27), and recognizes their evidentiary value. The Court considers that the statement given by Elvira Gómez-Olivares (supra para. 28), which is useful in the instant case, cannot be assessed separately for she is an alleged victim with an interest in the outcome of the instant case, but rather it must be assessed as a whole with the rest of the body of evidence in the case.18 In addition, as regards the documents submitted by expert witnesses Raúl Ignacio Nogueira-Alcala and Jean Pierre Matus-Acuña during the public hearing of the instant case (supra para. 28), the Court admits them, inasmuch as they are useful in the instant case and form the grounds for their expert opinions. 17 Cf. Case of Ximenes-Lopes, supra note 14, para. 48; Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 14, para. 112; and Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 14, para. 65. 18 Cf. Case of Ximenes-Lopes, supra note 14, para. 48; Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 14, para. 121; and Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 14, para. 66.