5 [alleged] human rights violations committed"; b) Jesús Ramón Quintero, tenured professor of the Criminal Procedural Law Chair at Universidad Central de Venezuela and Universidad Católica Andrés Bello; expert witness proposed by the Commission. He rendered a statement about the "criminal legislation of the protection of public and constitutional property applicable to the time in which the criminal proceeding of this case was conducted; and the reforms introduced in such fields after the delivery of the condemnatory judgment against the [alleged] victim”; and c) Gilberto Venere Vásquez, attorney and PhD in Public Law, expert witness proposed by the State. He rendered a statement about “the reforms carried out to the Criminal Code and the Basic Code of Criminal Procedure, to adapt them to the rules of the American Convention on Human Rights and about the transition from the inquisitorial to the adversarial system". 2. Evidence Assessment 16. In the case at hand, as in many other cases,10 the Tribunal admits the evidentiary value of such documents timely forwarded by the parties in that have not been disputed nor challenged, or its authenticity questioned. As to the documentary evidence forwarded by the State together with its final arguments (supra para. 9), the Tribunal takes note of the observations made by the representative (supra para. 10) in relation to the fact that such evidence is time-barred. However, considering that such evidence consist of the court files of the case produced at the domestic level, the Tribunal decides to accept such evidence, in accordance with Article 47(1) of its Rules of Procedure, for it is pertinent and necessary to determine the facts of the instant case. 17. As to the evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case, which was untimely forwarded by the representative (supra para. 11) the Tribunal decides to accept it for it is useful for the instant case and was not challenged by the State. 18. As to the testimonies and expert opinions offered by the witnesses and expert witnesses at the public hearing and by means of affidavits, the Court deems they are relevant to the extent they relate to the purpose defined by the President of the Tribunal in the Order requiring them (supra para. 6). 19. As to the statement of Mr. Barreto Leiva, the Tribunal shall analyze his testimony taking into account that since the alleged victim has a direct interest in the case, his statement cannot be assessed alone.11 V ARTICLES 8 (RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL)12 AND 25 (RIGHT TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION)13 IN RELATION TO ARTICLES 1(1) (OBLIGATION TO RESPECT 10 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodriguez V. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140; and Case of Perozo et al. V. Venezuela, supra note 5, para. 94, and Case of Kawas Fernández V. Honduras, supra note 5, para. 39. 11 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo V. Perú. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C. Nº 33, para. 43; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. V. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 54 and Case of Tristán Donoso V. Panamá. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 27, 2009. Series C No. 193, para. 24.