22 70. Notwithstanding that, the Court finds it necessary to determine the facts and all the subsisting aspects of the merits and possible reparations, as well as the corresponding consequences, in order to satisfy the purposes of the Inter-American jurisdiction on human rights.47 VII EVIDENCE 71. Based on the provisions of Articles 46, 47, and 49 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as on the Court's jurisprudence regarding the evidence and assessment thereof,48 the Court shall now examine the evidence forwarded by the parties at the different procedural stages, the affidavits presented and those rendered during the public hearing, as well as the evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case requested by the Tribunal. In doing so, the Tribunal shall assess them on the basis of sound judgment, within the applicable legal framework.49 1. Documentary, Testimonial, and Expert Evidence 72. The Court admitted the affidavits rendered by the following witnesses and expert witnesses:50 1) Leoncio Raúl Ochoa Tapia, witness proposed by the representatives, who rendered a statement about the facts he has knowledge of regarding the alleged arrest of Mr. Jesús Vélez Loor; the treatment that the alleged victim allegedly received by the Panamanian authorities during the alleged imprisonment at La Palma detention center, and the imprisonment conditions to which Mr. Vélez Loor was subjected at La Palma detention center. 2) Sharon Irasema Díaz Rodríguez, witness proposed by the representatives, who made declarations about the prison conditions in the Republic of Panama and, in particular, at La Palma detention center and at La Joya-La Joyita prison, at the time of the events and at the present time; causes identified by the Ombudsman of Panama in relation to the alleged human rights violations in Panamanian prisons and proposed by the Ombudsman of Panama to address these aspects. 3) Ricardo Julio Vargas Davis, witness proposed by the State, who rendered a statement about the legal authority of the Ombudsman of Panama, its role, the constitutional nature and the scope of such role, and the procedures and measures adopted by the Ombudsman of Panama in relation to the facts of the instant case. 4) Luis Adolfo Corró Fernández, witness proposed by the State, who 47 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripan Massacre,” supra note 29, para. 69; Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas, supra note 11, para. 18, and Case of Tiu Tojín v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2008. Series C No. 190, para. 22. 48 Cf. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, para. 86; Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76, para. 50, and Case of Bámaca Velásquez v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 15. See also, Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison, supra note 27, paras. 183 and 184; Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, paras. 67, 68, and 69, and Case of Servellón García et al. v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, para. 34. 49 Cf. Case of the “White Van”(Paniagua Morales et al.), supra note 27, para. 76; Case of Ibsen Cárdenas and Ibsen Peña, supra note 28, para. 39, and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al., supra note 27, para. 27. 50 By means of the Order of August 10, 2010, the President ordered the expert witness Arturo Hoyos Phillips to render his expert report before a public notary (affidavit) (supra para. 8, Operative Paragraph 2).