53 suffers false accusations. The need to reestablish Myrna Mack Chang’s good name is a necessary symbolic reparation for the peace of mind of all the family. It is also necessary for the family to receive psychological assistance individually and as a family. She interviewed the family of Myrna Mack Chang in Guatemala, as a group and individually. To complement her general expert opinion, she submitted to the Court the individual psychological reports for Zoila Chang Lau, Marco Mack Chang and his wife, Helen Mack Chang, Ronald Chang Apuy, and Lucrecia Hernández Mack. C) EVIDENCE ASSESSMENT Evaluation of the Documentary Evidence 128. In this case, as in others,33 the Court accepts the probatory value of those documents that were submitted by the parties at the appropriate procedural moment or as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case, which was not disputed nor challenged, and the authenticity of which was not questioned. On the other hand, pursuant to Article 43 of the Rules of Procedure, the Court admits the evidence submitted by the parties regarding the supervening events that occurred after the application was filed. 129. It should be recalled that the body of evidence in a case is unique and indivisible and is composed of the evidence submitted during all stages of the proceeding,34 so the documents contributed by the parties with respect to the preliminary objections are also part of the evidence in the instant case, even if the State subsequently withdrew said objections (supra paras. 25 and 27). 130. With respect to the written sworn statements rendered by Clara Arenas Bianchi and Carmen de León-Escribano Schlotter, as well as by expert witness Bernardo Morales Figueroa, the Court deems them pertinent inasmuch as they are in accordance with the object defined by the Court in the Order to receive them (supra para. 35). 131. As regards the documents requested by this Court on the basis of Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure and that were submitted by the parties (supra paras. 55 and 57) the Court includes them in the body of evidence in the instant case, pursuant to the provision of paragraph one of that Article. The Report of the Comisión para el Esclarecimiento Histórico, “Guatemala, memoria del silencio” (hereinafter “CEH Report”), the “Informe para la Recuperación de la Memoria Histórica” of the Human Rights Office of the Archbishopric, “Guatemala: Nunca más: los mecanismos del horror (hereinafter “REMHI Report”), the December 29, 1996 Peace Accord, “Acuerdo de Paz Firme y Duradera entre el Gobierno de la República de Guatemala y la Unidad Revolucionaria Guatemalteca,” the Political Constitution of the Republic of Guatemala and the Criminal Procedures Code in force at the time of the facts, are deemed useful documentation to decide on the instant case, for which reason they are added to the body of evidence, pursuant to the provisions of Article 44(1) of the Rules of 33 Cf. Bulacio Case, supra note 9, para. 57; Juan Humberto Sánchez Case, supra note 9, para. 45; and “Five Pensioners” Case, supra note 9, para. 84. 34 Cf. Bulacio Case, supra note 9, para. 68; Juan Humberto Sánchez Case, supra note 9, para. 60; and Las Palmeras Case. Reparations, supra note 10, para. 34.