26 Social Indicators), prepared by the Department for Production and Dissemination of Statistics in January 1999, establishes life expectancy by five-year periods. The Court will take the data contained in the last two tables and will determine the life expectancy of the victims, understood as the number of additional years that each victim might have lived, taking into account data such as age, sex and geographical zone of residence (supra 66.b) 69. In this case, as in others, the Court accepts the evidentiary value of those documents submitted by the parties at the due procedural opportunity or as helpful evidence that were not contested or opposed and the authenticity of which was not questioned18. 70. Regarding the testimony given by the next of kin of the victims in this case, the Court admits it when it is consistent with the purpose of the line of questioning proposed by the Commission. In this respect, this Court considers that, as they are close relatives and have a direct interest in the case, their statements cannot be evaluated in isolation, but rather within the context of all the evidence in the proceedings. With regard to reparations, the testimony of the next of kin is useful, provided they can supply additional information about the consequences of the violations that were committed. 71. As for the expert reports by Graciela Marisa Guilis and Robin Eric Hahnel, this Court admits them, insofar as they are consistent with the purpose proposed by the Commission. VI OBLIGATION TO MAKE REPARATION 72. In the seventh operative paragraph of the judgment of March 8, 1998, the Court decided that Guatemala “[was] obliged to make reparation for the consequences of the declared violations and to pay fair compensation to the victims and, where appropriate, to their next of kin” (supra 3.7). The Court will decide the disagreement on this issue in this judgment. 73. In the eighth operative paragraph of the same judgment, the Court decided to open the reparations stage and authorize the President to adopt the corresponding procedural measures. 74. Article 63(1) of the American Convention in fine applies to reparations; it establishes [The Court] shall also rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measure or situation that constituted the breach of such right or freedom be remedied and that fair compensation be paid to the injured party (the original is not underlined). 18 Cf. Caso Castillo Paéz, Reparations, supra note 2, para. 39; Loayza Tamayo case, Reparations, supra note 2, para. 53; and Suárez Rosero case. Reparations (Article 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of January 20, 1999. Series C No. 44, para. 29.