18 Regarding the “Colina Group,” the expert stated that this unit did not act separately from the military institution, but that it was an organic and functional military detachment within the Army structure, during the Alberto Fujimori administration, as the group made use of the human and logistic resources of the Dirección de Inteligencia del Ejército (DINTE) (Army Intelligence Bureau), Servicio de Inteligencia del Ejército (SIE) (Army Intelligence Service), and Servicio de Inteligencia Nacional (SIN) (National Intelligence Service). Owing to the preponderance acquired by the Servicio de Inteligencia Nacional (SIN) (National Intelligence Service), the service was eventually the executions instrumentality used by Vladimiro Montesinos — advisor to former President Alberto Fujimori, and Nicolás Hermoza-Ríos, Army General. The “Colina Group” would be defined as an intelligence network. It was created by decision of the Army Command. Most of its members were non-commissioned officers who had had all sorts of problems, especially with military justice, on account of having committed ordinary offenses. According to the report submitted by the expert, the Colina Group used terrorist tactics as a kind of special intelligence operations. Such operations were performed by a number of individuals in uniform, or in civilian clothes but clearly identifiable as Army members, heavily armed and in most of the cases wearing balaclavas over their faces. B) EVIDENCE ASSESSMENT 49. In the instant case, as in others,6 the Court admits the evidentiary value of those documents that were submitted by the parties at the appropriate procedural time or as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case, which were neither disputed nor challenged, and the authenticity of which was not questioned. 50. Regarding the testimony rendered before an officer whose acts deserve full faith and credit (affidavits) by Mrs. Victoria Margarita Palomino-Buitrón and Mrs. Esmila Liliana Conislla-Cárdenas, victims in the instant case (supra paras. 37 and 38), this Court admits them to the extent they make reference to their subjectmatter, as stated in the Order of August 19, 2005 (supra para. 18) and in light of the acknowledgment of international responsibility made by the State (supra paras. 12 and 14). This Court believes that the depositions made by the alleged victims, who have a direct interest in the instant case, should be weighed by the standards of reasonable credit and weight analysis and as part of the whole body of evidence of the proceeding.7 Regarding the merits and reparations, the testimonies of the 6 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 1, para. 77; Case of Raxcacó-Reyes, supra note 4, para. 38, and Case of Gutiérrez-Soler, supra note 4, para. 43. 7 Cf. Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 1, para. 83; Case of Raxcacó-Reyes, supra note 4, para. 39, and Case of Gutiérrez-Soler, supra note 4, para. 47.