12 32. It is appropriate to emphasize that when presenting its arguments, the Commission argued that the violations of the rights to personal integrity, to judicial guarantees, to judicial protection, and to the protection of the family, were committed to the detriment of Juan Gelman, María Claudia García, and María Macarena Gelman, as well as “their next of kin.”15 The representatives only identified those three individualized persons as alleged victims, and the State acknowledged its responsibility for the violations committed to their detriment. Given that the Commission did not identify, in the report issued based on Article 50 of the Convention, what relatives it referred to, the Court deems as alleged victims in the present case only the three persons mentioned. V EVIDENCE 33. Based on the stipulations of Articles 46, 49, and 50 of the Rules of Procedures, as well as the jurisprudence of the Court,16 the Court will assess the documentary evidentiary elements submitted by the parties in the various procedural opportunities, as well as the declarations offered by the alleged victims, the testimony and expert reports rendered through sworn statements before a public notary and in the public hearing before the Court. Therefore, the Court will heed to the rules of sound judgment and competent analysis, within the corresponding legal framework. 17 A. Documentary, testimonial, and expert evidence 34. The Tribunal received the declarations rendered before a public notary by the experts specified in the present section, concerning the topics mentioned next. The content of said declarations are included in the corresponding chapter: a. Ana Deutsch, psychologist, who presented an expert opinion on: i) the psychological effects of the enforced disappearance of María Claudia García Iruretagoyena on her daughter Macarena, on Juan Gelman , and her family nucleaus; and, ii) the psychological consequences for Macarena Gelman due to her birth in clandestine circumstances, the suppression of her identity, as well as the impunity at hand in the case. b. Pablo Chargoñia, attorney, who presented technical information on: i) the effects of the Expiry Law [Amnesty Law] of the State and the situation of the investigations in regard to Uruguayan justice; and, ii) the characteristics of the criminal investigations in Uruguay related to the serious human rights violations that occurred during the dictatorship.                                                          15 The next of kin mentioned indirectly in some parts of the application, are Juan Antonio García Irureta-Goyena and Alejandro Martín García Cassinelli, father and brother, respectively, and María Claudia García Iruretagoyena de Gelman. 16 Cf. Case of “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) V. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76, para. 50; Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) V. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2010. Series C No. 219, para. 51, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores V. México. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010 Series C No. 220, para. 24. 17 Cf. Case of “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) V. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 76; Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia), supra note 16, para. 51, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores, supra note 16, para. 24.