4 IV EVIDENCE 13. Based on the provisions of Articles 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as on the Court's case law regarding the evidence and assessment thereof6, the Court shall now examine and assess the documentary evidence forwarded by the parties at the different procedural stages, as well as the affidavits rendered during the public hearing. In doing so, the Tribunal will assess them on the basis of sound judgment, within the applicable legal framework.7 1. Testimonial Evidence and Expert Reports 14. The Court received the affidavits rendered by the following witnesses proponed by the representative:8 a) Luis Enrique Farías Mata, who rendered a statement about “his dissenting opinion at the trial against Mr. Barreto Leiva”; b) Beatriz Di Totto, who declared about the “[alleged] violation of the due process of law in the proceeding conducted against Mr. Barreto Leiva and the [alleged] pressures from the Executive on the Supreme Court of Justice in the same case[;] and about the [alleged] violation of the right to defense of Mr. Barreto Leiva on the part of the Comptroller General of the Republic of Venezuela”; and c) Alberto Arteaga Sánchez, who rendered a statement about "the [alleged] violations of the due process of law in the proceeding conducted against Mr. Barreto Leiva and the [alleged] pressure exerted by the Executive on the Supreme Court of Justice in the same case". 15. Moreover, as to the evidence produced at the public hearing, the Court listened to the declarations rendered by the following people:9 a) Oscar Barreto Leiva, alleged victim proposed by the Commission. He declared about the “criminal proceeding conducted against him; the [alleged] obstacles he had to face in order to search justice in his case and the consequences in his personal, family and professional life of the 6 Cf. 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; Case of Perozo et al. V. Venezuela. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 28, 2009. Series C No. 195, para. 91; and Case of Kawas Fernández V. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009; Series C No. 196, para. 36. 7 Cf. Case of the“White Van" (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala, Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C, Nº 37, para. 76; and Case of Perozo et al. V. Venezuela, supra note 6, para. 112, and Case of Kawas Fernández V. Honduras, supra note 6, para. 36. 8 On June 6, 2009 the representative informed that "due to reasons of force majeure", Mr. Alberto Arteaga Sánchez, called upon by the President to render a statement at the public hearing, was unable to assist the hearing; therefore the representative requested the Court to allow such witness to render an affidavit. On June 8, 2009 the President granted the request, On June 26, 2009 the representative informed the Tribunal of its decision to dismiss the affidavit of Alfredo Ducharne. 9 During the public hearing, the State declared that it desisted from the taking the testimony of Mr. José Vicente Rangel.