26 carrying out of executions” without previous trial. Article 6 of Protocol II sets out a series of guarantees that must be ensured to persons in an internal armed conflict. C) ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE Assessment of the Documentary Evidence 58. In this case, as in others,25 the Court accepts the probative value of the documents presented by the parties at the proper procedural opportunity or as helpful evidence, that were not contested or opposed, and whose authenticity was not questioned. The Court also accepts, in accordance with Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure, the evidence submitted by the parties in relation to events that occurred after the presentation of the application. 59. Regarding the statements made before notary public by the two expert witnesses proposed by the alleged victim’s representatives and by the two witnesses proposed by the Inter-American Commission (supra paras. 24, 27, 49 and 50), pursuant to the provisions of Article 47(3) of the Rules of Procedure and the decision of the President in the order of May 19, 2004 (supra para. 23), the Court admits them insofar as they correspond to the purpose defined by the Court and assesses them with the body of evidence, using the rules of sound criticism. 60. With regard to the statement made by María Teresa De La Cruz Flores (supra para. 50(a)), the Court considers that, as she is the alleged victim who has a direct interest in the case, her statement must be assessed together with all the evidence in the proceedings and not in isolation. In matters concerning merits and reparations, the statement of the alleged victim is useful insofar as it can provide more information on the consequences of the violations.26 61. In accordance with Article 44(3) of its Rules of Procedure, the Court admits opinion No. 167-2003-2FSEDT-MP/FN formulated on September 2, 2003, by the Superior Prosecutor of the office of the Second Special Superior Prosecutor for terrorism in the proceeding against María Teresa De La Cruz Flores and others for the crime of terrorism; the Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission submitted on a compact disc entitled: “¡Nunca más!” [Never again] prepared by the Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos (APRODEH); the decision issued on November 6, 2003, by the National Terrorism Chamber in file No. 113-95 “S”; report No. 09 formulated on July 1, 2003 by the Titular Provincial Prosecutor of the office of the Third Provincial Prosecutor specializing in Crimes of Terrorism in file No. 502-03; the decision issued on October 16, 2003, by the National Terrorism Chamber in file No. 113-95; and the decision issued on November 5, 2003, by the National Terrorism Chamber in file No. 113-95, submitted by the alleged victim’s representatives on December 19, 2003 (supra paras. 19 and 48), because this evidence relates to supervening events, and was not contested or opposed, and its authenticity was not questioned. 25 Cf. Case of Tibi, supra note 1, para. 77; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 1, para. 80; and Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 1, para. 61. 26 Cf. Case of Tibi, supra note 1, para. 86; Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 1, para. 66; and Case of Herrera Ulloa. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 72.