9 respectively, transmitted the documentation requested (infra 62 and 64). On March 23 and 30, 2001, the lawyer, Mark Martel, forwarded part of the documentation requested (infra 63). Finally, the State submitted part of the information requested on March 16 and 30 and April 6, 2001 (infra 61). On April 17, 2001, the Secretariat remitted the documentation obtained as helpful evidence to the parties. IV PROVISIONAL MEASURES 43. On January 26, 2001, the Inter-American Commission informed the Court about an attack on the minor, Manuel Alberto González Chinchilla, perpetrated by unknown persons in December 2000, as a result of which “he was hit by two bullets and was [transferred] to a hospital where he received medical treatment.” The minor, González Chinchilla, is the son of the victim, Manuel de Jesús González López, and appeared to testify at the public hearing on reparations held at the seat of the Court on August 11 and 12, 2000 (supra 41). 44. By an order of January 29, 2001, the Court decided: 1. To call on the State of Guatemala to adopt any necessary measure to protect the life and physical integrity of Manuel Alberto González Chinchilla. 2. To call on the State of Guatemala to investigate the facts indicated and provide information on the situation of the said person, and also about the measures adopted in compliance with the [said] order, by February 8, 2001, at the latest. 3. To call on the State of Guatemala to submit reports on the provisional measures in the instant case every two months, as of the date of notification of the [said] order, and on the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to submit its comments on these reports within six weeks of receiving them. 45. On February 28, 2001, the State sent the Court 44.2). In this document, the State declared that it had González Chinchilla, and to his representative that the the necessary protection to safeguard his security and integrity. the report requested (supra communicated to the minor, State was willing to provide protect his life and physical 46. At the time this judgment was delivered, the State had not submitted its first report in compliance with the third operative paragraph of the order of the Court of January 29, 2001 (supra 44.3). These provisional measures will be maintained while it is shown that the circumstances of extreme gravity and urgency that justified their adoption persist. V EVIDENCE RELATING TO REPARATIONS 47. Before examining the evidence received, the Court will define the general criteria for evaluating the evidence and will make some observations that are applicable to this specific case, most of which have been developed previously by the jurisprudence of the Court. 48. Article 43 of the Rules of Procedure establishes that: Items of evidence tendered by the parties shall be admissible only if previous notification thereof is contained in the application and in the reply thereto [...]. Should any of the