16 54. In the following chapters, the Court will also examine the elements relating to merits and reparations about which there is still a dispute concerning the State’s responsibility. These are: (a) (b) (c) The facts and the alleged violation of the right to humane treatment to the detriment of the next of kin of the alleged victims, embodied in Article 5 of the Convention; The alleged violation of Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, to the detriment of the alleged victims and their next of kin, regarding the allegations that the State has not acknowledged (supra paras. 41 and 50); and The facts relating to the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused to the alleged victims and their next of kin, as a result of the detention, torture and forced disappearance of the former, and also relating to the determination of reparations and costs. VII EVIDENCE 55. Based on the provisions of Articles 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure, and also on the Court’s case law concerning evidence and its assessment,8 the Court will now examine and assess the documentary probative elements forwarded by the Commission and the State at different procedural opportunities and as helpful evidence requested on the instructions of the President. A) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 56. The Inter-American Commission forwarded testimonial statements and expert opinions, as required in the President’s order of May 5, 2006 (supra para. 18). The Commission also forwarded the statements of Gladis Ester Ríos, Ana Elizabeth Mancuello Bareiro and María Magdalena Galeano, and the representatives forwarded the statement of Rosa Mujica Giménez (supra paras. 21, 24, 26 to 30 and 34 to 38 and infra para. 59). The Court summarizes these statements below. Witnesses (a) Rogelio Agustín Goiburú Benítez, son of Dr. Agustín Goiburú Rogelio Goiburú Benítez declared that, after his father had been expelled from the hospital where he worked, “he had to go into hiding for several months” and, subsequently, went into exile in Posadas, Argentina. He stated that Dr. Goiburú and his family “were constantly being harassed.” He described how his father “denounced and unmasked the tyrannical regime of Alfredo Stroessner, [engaged] in […] political activities,” from the time he arrived in Argentina. His father was a founding member of the Colorado Popular Movement (MOPOCO). He stated that, on one occasion, his father and brother were abducted; 8 Cf. Case of Ximenes Lopes. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149, para. 42; Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 1, para. 106; and Case of Baldeón García, supra note 6, para. 60.