40 56. On the other hand, following the precedent of its case law on this matter, the Court brings to mind that “in proceedings on violations of human rights, the defense of the State cannot lean on the plaintiff’s impossibility to gather evidence that, in many cases, cannot be obtained without the cooperation of the State” and that “the State has control of the means to clarify the facts that took place in its territory.”24 57. In the instant case, without detriment to what is stated in subsequent paragraphs regarding statements of the witnesses and their next of kin and expert witness reports, the Court accepts the probatory value of those documents submitted in a timely manner by the parties that were not disputed nor their authenticity questioned. 58. With respect to the reports submitted in writing by Alicia Neuburger and Magdalena López de Ibáñez on the psychological impact of human rights violations committed by the State on the affected individuals and families, and by Jesús María Casal on adequacy of Venezuelan juridical institutions and laws in light of the American Convention and other circumstances of the case, reports filed by the representatives of the victims and of the next of kin (supra paras. 23 and 44), the Court deems them useful insofar as they are in accordance with the object of the expert opinion, as ordered by the Court. 59. With respect to written testimony rendered by the three surviving victims and the next of kin of other victims, the Court also deems it relevant insofar as it is in accordance with the object stated by the party offering them and defined by the Court in the order to receive it (supra para. 20). The Court notes that, in general, statements by the victims and the next of kin of the victims are especially useful regarding reparations, insofar as they can provide very relevant information regarding the harmful consequences of the violations committed.25 Nevertheless, as the victims and the next of kin have a direct interest in the instant case, their statements cannot be assessed in an isolated manner, but rather as part of the body of evidence gathered in the proceedings. 60. The Court verifies, in turn, that in the instant case the statements of the victims and of other next of kin of victims, as well as the expert witness reports, were submitted to the proceedings by means of briefs. Their content and the signature of the individuals signing each statement or report were certified by a notary public. This, in itself, contributes to their credibility. Nevertheless, the Court will not consider the respective procedural items to be conclusive evidence –as was also stated in the previous paragraph, regarding the testimony of the victims and 23 Cf. Cantoral Benavides Case. August 18, 2000 Judgment. Series C No. 69, para. 47; “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.). November 19, 1999 Judgment. Series C No. 63, para. 69; and Castillo Petruzzi et al. Case. May 30, 1999 Judgment. Series C No. 52, para. 62. 24 Durand and Ugarte Case. August 16, 2000 Judgment. Series C No. 68, para. 65. Cf., also, Cantoral Benavides Case, supra note 23, para. 55; and Neira Alegría et al. Case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). September 19, 1996 Judgment. Series C No. 29, para. 65. 25 Cf. Trujillo Oroza Case. Reparations, supra note 2, para. 52; Bámaca Velásquez Case. Reparations, supra note 2, para. 27; and “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.). Reparations, supra note 19, para. 55.