31 set out in the preceding paragraph, the Court admits it and assesses it with the body of evidence, applying the rules of sound criticism22 and also taking into consideration these objections. 84. With regard to the documents requested by this Court based on Article 45 of the Rules of Procedure, which were presented by the State (supra paras. 58 and 59), the Court incorporates them into the body of evidence of the instant case, in accordance with the first paragraph of this rule. Assessment of the Testimonial Evidence 85. The Court admits the statement made by Rhoda Berenson (supra para. 76), inasmuch as it corresponds to the purpose of the questions established by the President in the order of March 5, 2004 (supra para. 35). This Court considers that, since she is a member of the alleged victim’s family and has a direct interest in the case, her statement must be assessed together with all the evidence in the proceedings and not in isolation. As the Court has indicated, the statements of the next of kin of alleged victims are useful insofar as they can provide more information on the consequences of the violations perpetrated.23 86. With regard to the testimonial statement made by Fausto Humberto Alvarado Dodero (supra para. 76), which was not contested or opposed, the Court admits it and recognizes its probative value. 87. Based on the above, the Court will assess the significance of the documents, statements and expert reports presented, which form part of a single body of evidence, considered as a whole, in order to establish the facts and their consequences.24 VI PROVEN FACTS 88. Having examined the documents and the statements of the witnesses, and the arguments of the Commission, the representatives of the alleged victim and the State, the Court considers that the following facts have been proved: Background and legal context 22 Cf. Case of Tibi, supra note 3, para. 81; and Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 3, para. 85. 23 Cf. Case of Tibi, supra note 3, para. 87; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 3, para. 83; and Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 16, para. 63. 24 Cf. Case of Tibi, supra note 3, para. 89; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 3, para. 100; and Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 3, para. 68.