27 The disappearance of her husband also “affected her from the job standpoint […] since she was not the teacher devoted and dedicated to [her] students any more. She had to request a leave as she frequently had to be out of her job and practically, and due to reasons of professional ethics, she had to quit, waiving [her] rights or [her] benefits [… She had] to resign in order to be able to go on with the proceedings […] and actions." This had affected the economy of her family. She found nothing belonging to her husband in the mass graves discovered. However, the authorities took blood samples from her youngest son to conduct the DNA test, the results of which she does not know. At the time of the events analyzed in the instant case, “it was not unusual that any citizen […] was arrested and took under custody in order to conduct the corresponding investigation, alleging he/she was a terrorist. [When] people heard the word terrorism, everybody tried to be far from such person.” In fact, her friends and some relatives “have turned their back on her,” since they think her husband was a terrorist. “People lived[…] with anguish [since] at any time [one] could leave [the] home and there was not certainty of [being able] to come back.” The witness deemed that the people was aware of the existence of a systematic practice and State terrorism. Her sister-in-law, who accompanied her when she had to resolve matters related to the proceedings and during her long walks, was frequently followed by a car. Besides, her sons feared that she might declare before the Inter-American Court. The next of kin of the dead or missing persons had not access to the proceedings followed before the military courts. Afterwards, with the fall of Fujimori´s government, she had hopes that justice would be done, but nothing happened. In the current proceeding, where she gave testimony before the Prosecutor, only a few persons have been accused while others are free. The proceeding is long and wearisome. She participated in a hearing that “was extremely hard to endure since the person who was giving testimony explained, with great detail, how […had killed [her] husband.” As of said time she has not returned since she "was appalled and deeply shocked.” Her brother-in-law and her other relatives keep her posted of the progress of proceedings. She has never received any apologies for what happened to her husband. And though they really need it, neither she nor her children have received any psychological support. She has been unable to overcome her husband’s death. From her point of view as teacher, a full redress must include education and health. Furthermore, she thinks that “people [can] not allow any violation of their rights. […] These are values that must be taught to young people." She requested the Court to do justice; that all persons involved, not only the perpetrators, but also the masterminds, be punished; that the University do not “sink into oblivion.” B) ASSESSMENT OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 7 62. As in other cases, the Court recognizes the evidentiary value of the documents submitted by the parties at the appropriate procedural state, which have neither been contested nor challenged, and whose authenticity has not been objected. Cf. Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 1, para. 55; Case of Ximenes-Lopes, supra note 6, para. 48; and Case of the Ituango Massacres. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 106. 7