36 representatives, whose authors were not offered as witnesses at the appropriate procedural moment or requested in the June 11, 2004 Order of the President (supra para. 29), since there were no objections by the Commission or by the State, this Court accepts them pursuant to Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure, as it deems them useful to adjudicate the instant case, and it assesses them within the body of evidence. 80. In regards to the sworn statements rendered by Alain Abellard and expert witness Michel Robert, Laurent Rapin’s replies to the questions sent to him in writing by the representatives, and the sworn statement before a notary public by expert witness César Banda Batallas (supra paras. 30 and 73), the Court accepts them inasmuch as they are in accordance with their object and assesses them within the body of evidence as a whole, applying the rules of competent analysis. 81. The statements rendered before a notary public by witnesses Elsy Magdalena Peñafiel Toscano and Gloria Antonia Pérez Vera (supra paras. 32 and 73), pursuant to the President’s June 11, 2004 Order (supra para. 29), were challenged by the Commission and the representatives (supra paras. 36 and 37). However, the Court accepts them inasmuch as they are accordance with their object, taking into account the objections raised by the parties, and it assesses them within the body of evidence as a whole, applying the rules of competent analysis. 82. Regarding the medical reports issued by doctors Christian Rat, Samuel Gèrard Benayoun, and Philippe Blanche (supra para. 69), which the State deemed “lack reliability, impartiality, and timeliness,” this Court admits them because it finds them useful to rule on the instant case; however, it takes into account the objections of the State and will assess them in the context of the body of evidence according to the rules of competent analysis. 83. This Court notes that the Inter-American Commission and the representatives forwarded only part of the documents requested as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case and the State forwarded no such documents (supra paras. 40, 41 and 42). The Court has reiterated that the parties must provide to the Court the evidence that it requests, whether documents, testimony, expert opinions, or other types of evidence. The Commission, the State and the representatives of the alleged victim and his next of kin must provide all the evidence requested to facilitate adjudication of the case, for the Court to have better grounds to establish the facts and on which to base its decisions. Specifically, in proceedings on human rights violations, the State has the obligation to provide to the Court the evidence that can only be obtained through its cooperation.24 84. The Court includes in the body of evidence the documents forwarded by the Commission and the representatives as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case in accordance with the provisions of Article 45(2) of the Rules of Procedure. This Court notes that the Commission submitted, together with the evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case, the following documents: a December 18, 2001 report by the Laboratoire de Biologie Lé-Thiébaut Selarl; a December 18, 2001 laboratory report prepared by Christophe Ronsin and Anne Ebel of the Laboratoire d´analyses 24 See Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 9, para. 77; Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez. Interpretation of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations, para. 47; and Case of the Caracazo. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). August 29, 2002 Judgment. Series C No. 95, para. 56.