14 e) Sara Mendez, a witness who testified about: i) the efforts carried out by Juan Gelman and Macarena Gelman in their search for truth and justice regarding the facts in the complaint; ii) the impact of this search in the lives of both individuals; and, iii) the consequences that the alleged impunity in this case generally caused. B. Assessment of the documentary evidence. 36. In this case, as in others,20 the Tribunal admits the evidentiary value of those documents presented in a timely manner by the parties, particularly because they were not contested or objected, nor their authenticity questioned. Almost all of the documentary evidence offered is found under this. 37. On the other hand, the Court admits, exceptionally, documents sent by the parties in different procedural opportunities, finding them relevant and useful for the determination of the facts and their possible judicial consequences, without prejudice of the considerations to be realized hereinafter. 38. The representatives enclosed with their final arguments proof of expenses related to the present case. The Tribunal will only consider those documents enclosed with the closing argument that refer to the costs and expenses that had incurred in relation with the proceedings before this Court, subsequent to the brief of pleadings and motions. C. Assessment of the testimonies by the alleged victims and the expert opinions 39. With respect to the testimonies and expert opinions rendered in the public hearing and by sworn statements, the Court considers that they are relevant inasmuch as they adhere to the purpose defined by the President in the Order requesting them (supra para. 7). These shall be assessed in the corresponding chapter together with the body of evidence.21 40. According to the jurisprudence of this Tribunal, statements rendered by the alleged victims cannot be assessed separately, but rather, must be evaluated along with the rest of the body of evidence, as they are useful and may provide further information on the alleged violations and the consequences thereof.22 Based on the foregoing, the Court admits the declarations, which will be assessed using the mentioned standards. VI                                                          20 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez V. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140; Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia), supra note 16, para. 54, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores, supra note 16, para. 27. 21 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo V. Perú. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 43; Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia), supra note 16, para. 67, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores, supra note 16, para. 37. 22 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo. Merits, supra note 21, para. 43; Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia), supra note 16, para. 69, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores, supra note 16, para. 39.