37 the public hearing on merits and possible reparations and costs had been held, and after the deadline for presenting the final written arguments had expired. 76. The State did not forward all the helpful documentary evidence on possible reparations and costs, which had been requested on the instructions of the President (supra paras. 50, 55, 58, 61, 62 and 69). Also, in the case of the certifications of the domestic investigations and proceedings requested in the Order of the Court of April 24, 2004, (supra para. 55), in the certifications, Colombia did not provide all the information requested. 77. With regard to the evidence submitted late by the State, and the documentation and information that it did not present, the Court noted that the parties must provide the Court with the evidence it requests, either documentary, testimonial, expert reports, or any other kind. The Commission and the State must provide all the probative elements requested as evidence to help it arrive at a decision, so that it has the maximum information to evaluate the facts and substantiate its decisions. In that regard, it must be borne in mind that, in proceedings on human rights violations, the applicant may not be able to provide evidence that can only be obtained with the State’s cooperation13. 78. In the case of the documents requested by this Court based on Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure, which were presented by the State (supra paras. 50, 55, 58, 61, 62 and 69), the Court incorporates them into the body of evidence of this case, applying the provisions of the second paragraph of that Article. 79. With regard to the sworn written statements made before a public notary by ten of the next of kin of the alleged victims (supra paras. 33 and 71), as instructed by the President in the Order of April 22, 2003 (supra paras. 29 and 71), the Court admits them to the extent that they correspond to their purpose and assesses them in the context of the body of evidence, applying the rules of healthy criticism. In that respect, this Court considers that, as they are next of kin of the alleged victims and have a direct interest in the case, their statements must be assessed together with all the evidence in the proceedings and not in isolation. In matters concerning merits and to reparations, the statements of the next of kin of the alleged victims are useful insofar as they can provide more information on the consequences of the violations perpetrated.14 Testimonial and expert evidence assessment 80. During the public hearing, the State declared, with regard to the testimonies given before the Court, that “the proliferation of value judgments incorporated in the statements detracts from [their] objectivity, since contrasting evidence is lacking.” Regarding the statements made during the public hearing by the next of kin of the alleged victims in this case (supra paras. 52 and 72), the Court admits them, to the extent that they correspond to the purpose of the questioning and assesses them 13 Cf. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez. Interpretation of the judgment on preliminary objections, merits and reparations, supra note 6, para. 47; Case of El Caracazo. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of August 29, 2002. Series C No. 95, para. 56; and the Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, para. 99. 14 Cf. Case of Maritza Urrutia, supra note 3, paras. 53 and 54; Case of Myrna Mack Chang, supra note 3, para. 132; and Case of Bulacio, supra note 3, para. 66.