V EVIDENCE 70. Based on the provisions of Article 57 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as the case law of the Court regarding evidence and its assessment,20 the Court will proceed to examine and assess the documentary evidence submitted by the Commission, the representatives, and the State on different procedural occasions, the expert witness statement given by affidavit, and the testimony received during the public hearing held in this case. To this end, the Court will observe the rules of sound judicial discretion, within the corresponding legal framework.21 A. Testimony of the alleged victim and expert evidence 71. The Court received the following affidavit: Natalia Sergi, proposed by the representatives, who gave expert evidence on (i) the duration of criminal proceedings in Argentina, and (ii) the alleged lack of reparation for victims of the said violations. 72. Regarding the evidence given at the public hearing, the Court heard the testimony of: Jorge Fernando Grande, proposed by the representative, who testified on: (i) the alleged facts of the case; (ii) the alleged violations, and (iii) the alleged effects on him of these violations. B. Admission of documentary evidence 73. In this case, as in others,22 the Court admits the probative value of those documents that have been presented by the parties in a timely manner, which have not been contested or objected to, and whose authenticity has not been challenged. 74. The representative forwarded several document with their final written arguments, submitted on June 15, 2011, relating to different expenses incurred by the representative and the alleged victim as a result of the public hearing in this case. The State, together with the brief it submitted on July 7, 2011, presented several documents relating to the duration of criminal proceedings in Argentina because the Court requested this information during the public hearing. The Court admits this documentation pursuant to Articles 57 and 58 of the Rules of Procedure. C. Admission of the testimony of the alleged victim and the expert evidence 20 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 76; Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2011. Series C No. 227, para. 36, and Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador, supra note 14, para. 36. 21 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits, supra note 19, para. 76; Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, supra note 19, para. 26, and Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador, supra note 14, para. 36. 22 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No 4, para. 140; Case of Chocrón Chocrón v. Venezuela, supra note 19, para. 29, and Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador, supra note 14, para. 38. 17