13 the alleged victims are duly identified in both briefs, removing the possibility of adding new alleged victims in the petition.25 45. Based on the aforementioned and in the partial acknowledgement of responsibility by the State, the Tribunal considers as alleged victims Florencio Chitay Nech and his children Encarnación, Pedro, Eliseo, Estermerio, and María Rosaura, all with the last name of Chitay Rodriguez, over whom no controversy exists among the parties regarding their identification as victims. The Court notes that for procedural reasons, due to the fact that the Commission in the petition did not include Marta Rodriguez Quex as an alleged victim, who is alleged to have equally suffered due to the circumstances, she cannot be considered an alleged victim before this Tribunal. Nevertheless, the Court highlights that the lack of a determination of violations to her detriment in this international instance does not pose an obstacle to preclude the possibility that the State, in its discretion, adopt reparation measures in her favor.26 46. Regarding Amada Rodriguez Quex, this Court has affirmed that she was not identified as an alleged victim in the Report on the Merits of Article 50 nor in the petition. Regarding the request of the representatives to include the community of San Martín Jilopeteque as an alleged victim, it is fitting to observe that on one hand, it was not alleged at the proper procedural point in time and neither was it included in the Report on Merits or in the petition as an alleged victim. Consequently, it does not correspond to the Court to make a decision about the supposed violations alleged by the representatives to the detriment of the aforementioned parties. VII EVIDENCE 47. Based on the stipulations of Article 44 and 45 of its Rules of Procedures, as well as in the jurisprudence of the Tribunal regarding the evidence and its assessment,27 the Court will proceed to examine and assess the elements of documentary evidence submitted by the parties at the various procedural opportunities, as well as the statements offered by affidavit and those received at the public hearing. In this regard, the Tribunal will obey the rules of competent analysis, within the corresponding legal framework.28 1. Documental, testimonial and expert witness evidence 48. The statements offered before a public notary (affidavit) by the following witnesses and experts were received: 25 Cf. Case Radilla Pacheco V. México, supra note 12, para. 110, and Case Of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, supra note 12, para. 20. 26 Cf. Case Radilla Pacheco V. México, supra note 12, para. 111. 27 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua-Morales et al.)V. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 25 of May of 2001. Series C No. 76, para. 50; Case Dacosta Cadogan V. Barbados. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of 24 of September of 2009. Series C No. 203, para. 32, and Case Of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, supra note 12, para. 55. 28 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua-Morales et al.)V. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of 8 of March of 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 76; Case Radilla Pacheco V. México, supra note 12, para. 67, and Case Of the Dos Erres Massacre v. Guatemala, supra note 12, para. 55.