18 48. With regard to the State’s objection to the report of the former Ombudsman and expert witness at the public hearing, Leo Valladares Lanza, the Court observes that this objection was rejected by the Court, because it considered that it was not sufficient to invalidate the expertise.37 Moreover, the State did not object to the book provided by this expert witness, when the Court forwarded it to the State on March 3, 2003.38 Also, owing to the special nature of this international organ, the Court has established that those document which are not contested are presumed to be valid39 and has always avoided making a rigid determination of the amount of evidence needed to support a judgment.40 This occurred in the case sub judice, in which the existence and evidence of a pattern of extrajudicial executions was not based, as the State asserts, merely on the book of the former Ombudsman but also, among other matters, because this Court was aware of the facts owing to the statements of witnesses offered by parties in previous cases against the same State concerning facts that occurred at the same time41 as the facts of this case. 49. In view of the foregoing, the Inter-American Court decides to reject the requested interpretation relating to the proven facts and evidence used for the ruling in this case. VII REPARATIONS 37 Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 10, para. 59. 38 Cf. Note of the Secretariat: Ref CDH 11,073/101; and Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 10, para. 53. 39 Cf., inter alia, Bulacio case, supra note 13, para. 57; Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 10, para. 45; the “Five Pensioners” case, supra note 20, para. 84; and Cantos case, supra note 15, para. 41. 40 Cf., Bulacio case, supra note 13, para. 42; Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 10, para. 30; the “Five Pensioners” case, supra note 20, para. 65 and Cantos case, supra note 15, para. 27; similarly, Corfu Channel, Merits, Judgment I.C.J. Reports 1949; Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America ), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, paras. 29-30 and 59-60. 41 Cf., Godínez Cruz case, supra note 30, paras. 153 b), 165, 167 and 198; Velásquez Rodríguez case, supra note 30, paras. 147.b), 157 and 188; Statement made by Leonel Casco Gutiérrez before the Inter-American Court on March 3, 2003; Report submitted by Leo Valladares Lanza before the InterAmerican Court on March 3, 2003; Report submitted by Héctor Fortín Pavón before the Inter-American Court on March 4, 2003; article in the daily newspaper Tiempo, “Tres asesinatos en quince días y la inseguridad verdadera”[Three assassinations in a fortnight and a real lack of security] dated July 31, 1992; article in the daily newspaper Tribuna, “Asesinatos Ideológicos son los de Borjas y Cayo Eng Lee”[ Borjas and Cayo Eng Lee were assassinated for ideological reasons] dated July 31, 1992; article in the daily newspaper Prensa “Piden interpelación de jefes militares” [Request that senior members of the army should be questioned] dated September 18, 1992, in a file at the Court’s Secretariat entitled “Anexos correspondientes al escrito de observaciones de los representantes de la presunta víctima y sus familiares ante la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos” [Attachments corresponding to the brief with observations of the representatives of the alleged victim and his next of kin before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights], attachment 7, pp. 22 to 24; and Sworn statement by Celso Sánchez Domínguez made on February 28, 2003, p. 51-59 in a file at the Court’s Secretariat entitled “Transcripción de audiencia pública. Excepciones/Fondo/ Reparations�� [Transcription of public hearing. Objections/Merits/Reparations], pp. 51 to 59; and National Human Rights Commissioner “Los hechos hablan por sí mismos. Informe preliminar sobre los desaparecidos en Honduras 1980-1993” [The facts speak for themselves. Preliminary report on the disappeared in Honduras 1980-1993], second edition. Editorial Guaymuras, Tegucigalpa, 2002, in a file at the Court’s Secretariat entitled “Transcripción de audiencia pública. Excepciones/Fondo/Reparations”, pp. 255-260 and 383-386.