IV EVIDENCE 10. Based on the provisions of Articles 50, 57 and 58 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as on its case law concerning evidence and its assessment, the Court will examine and weigh the documentary evidence submitted by the parties at different procedural opportunities, the statements of the presumed victim, the testimony of the witnesses, and the opinions of the expert witnesses provided by affidavit and during the public hearing before the Court. To this end, the Court will follow the rules of sound judicial discretion within the corresponding legal framework.10 A. Documentary, testimonial and expert evidence 11. The Court received diverse documents presented as evidence by the Inter-American Commission, the representatives, and the State, as well as the testimony and expert opinions provided by affidavit by the following persons: Olga Alicia Acevedo, Gustavo Fabián Baridón, Rosa Fornerón, José Arturo Galiñanes and Carlos Alberto Arianna. Regarding the evidence provided at the public hearing, the Court received the statement of the presumed victim Leonardo Aníbal Javier Fornerón, and the opinions of the expert witnesses Emilio Arturo García Méndez and Graciela Marisa Guilis.11 B. Admission of the evidence 12. In this case, as in others, the Court admits those documents forwarded by the parties at the appropriate procedural opportunity that were not contested or opposed, and the authenticity of which was not questioned.12 The information and documents requested as helpful evidence that were submitted by the State two and a half months after the original deadline and more than a month after the extension granted had expired (supra para. 7) are not admitted by the Court. 13. In addition, regarding the statement of the presumed victim, the testimony and the expert opinions provided during the public hearing and by affidavit, the Court considers them pertinent only to the extent that they are in keeping with the purpose defined by the President of the Court in the Order requiring them. They will be assessed in the corresponding chapter, together with the other elements of the body of evidence, and taking into account the observations formulated by the parties. Moreover, pursuant to this Court’s case law, the statements provided by the presumed victims cannot be assessed alone, but must be evaluated together with all the other evidence in the proceedings, because they are useful insofar as they can provide more information on the alleged violations and their consequences. 13 Based on the foregoing, the Court admits the said statements and expert opinions and will assess them in accordance with the abovementioned criteria. 10 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 76, and Case of González Medina and family v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 27, 2012. Series C No. 240, para. 64. 11 The purpose of these statements can be consulted in the Order of September 13, 2011, convening the public hearing, supra note 4. 12 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 1, para. 140, and Case of González Medina and family v. Dominican Republic, supra note 10, para. 66. 13 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 43, and Case of González Medina and family v. Dominican Republic, supra note 10, paras. 79 and 80. 6