41 other next of kin-, but rather will assess their content within the context of the body of evidence and following the rules of competent analysis.26 61. The documents submitted by the parties, whether with the brief on reparations (in the case of the representatives of the victims and of the next of kin), or with the brief with observations on reparations (in the case of the State), as they are subject matter of this stage of the proceedings and were supplied at the appropriate procedural time, will be assessed as evidence by the Court, under the appropriate terms. As regards the documents contributed as evidence to facilitate adjudication by the representatives of the victims and of the next of kin (supra para. 47) and by the State (supra para. 49), the Court deems them useful within the context of the body of evidence and will assess them under the appropriate terms. 62. It should be recalled that the body of evidence in a case is unique and indivisible and is formed by the evidence submitted during all stages of the proceedings,27 so the evidence supplied by the parties during the merits stage is also part of the probatory material that will be considered during the instant stage. 63. More precisely, the Court will apply the aforementioned criteria and elements of the body of evidence to establish as proven facts those relevant to the instant reparations stage, as follows: a) it will consider that the homicides, disappearances, violations of the right to humane treatment and violations of the right to fair trial, to due process and to effective remedy, against the 44 victims in this case and their next of kin, as well as the responsibility of the State in this regard, have been duly proven as a result of the merits stage, as was established in the November 11, 1999 judgment; the general circumstances in Venezuela at the time these human rights violations occurred were also proven in the same way, including public order disturbance and the acts of violence that occurred in late February and early March, 1989, and other concomitant or subsequent facts, such as the use of common graves by the authorities and ineffectiveness of domestic judicial investigations regarding the violent events; b) with respect to the dates of birth and death of the victims, as well as the circumstances of those deaths, and regarding the existence of persons who constituted the families of the victims, as well as the concrete kinship relations linking the latter to the former, the Court will base its decision on the information contained in the birth or death certificates issued by Venezuelan authorities. When such certificates are lacking, it will base its decision for the respective purposes on the reparations briefs filed by the representatives of the victims and their next of kin, or of the Commission, and on the content of other documents included in the body of evidence in accordance with what was stated above, such as the autopsy reports, baptism certificates, statements made before a notary public by the surviving victims and the next of kin of other victims, and the aforementioned reports of the 26 Cf. Hilaire, Constantine, Benjamin et al. Case, supra note 2, para. 69; Trujillo Oroza Case. Reparations, supra note 2, para. 37; and Bámaca Velásquez Case. Reparations, supra note 2, para. 15. 27 Cf. Trujillo Oroza Case. Reparations, supra note 2, para. 47; Bámaca Velásquez Case. Reparations, supra note 2, para. 22; and Cantoral Benavides Case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). December 3, 2001 Judgment. Series C No. 88, para. 34.