-32Ms. Silva Vargas also stated that she could vouch for the technical capacity of those responsible for searching for the disappeared and exhuming the bodies; they were members “of the forensic team of the Prosecutor General’s Office, composed of doctors, anthropologists, forensic experts [who] use […] every scientific method possible.” The witness indicated that, in this case, “specialized prosecutors had been appointed who were fully trained in affairs related to the inter-American systems and […] in investigation techniques.” She stated that these prosecutors “were supported financially […] by a State program […] sponsored […] by a United Nations agency to undertake this type of case, […] and a special group of investigators had been assigned to the case; a special group of forensic experts, of experts in technical and scientific areas such as doctors, odontologists, anthropologists, and people with experience in these sensitive issues.” Finally, the witness indicated that there is “a steering committee to guide the investigation of this case, composed of members of the Judiciary: judges, and representatives of the Attorney General’s Office, the Ombudsman’s Office, and the Prosecutor General’s office, assisted by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner.” She stated that currently the investigation is being handled by the National Human Rights Unit. C) ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE 67. In this section, the Court will assess the probative elements provided to the Court, as regards both their admissibility and their value in relation to the facts of the instant case. Assessment of the testimonial evidence 68. In relation to the statements made by the witnesses proposed by the Commission, the representatives and the State, Court admits them, to the extent that they are in keeping with the purpose established by the President in his orders of July 29 and September 6, 2005 (supra paras. 27 and 30), and accepts their probative value. 69. In this regard, the Court considers that the testimony of Ángel Emiro Jiménez Romero, José Daniel Álvarez Ruiz, Rubén Díaz Romero, Blanca Libia Moreno Cossio and Nancy Amparo Guerra López (supra para. 66(a), (c), (d), (e) and (f)) is useful in this case.13 However, since they are next of kin of the alleged victims and have a direct interest in the case, it must be assessed together with all the evidence in the case and not in isolation (infra para. 77). 70. The State contested the statement made before the Inter-American Court on September 19, 2005, by the witness, Mariano Manuel Martínez (supra para. 66(b)), considering that it lacked credibility. In this regard, the Court considers that this testimony can help the Court understand the facts of this case, to the extent that it is in keeping with the purpose defined in the said order of July 29, 2005 (supra para. 27), and assesses it together with the body of evidence, since the witness is among 13 Cf. Case of Blanco Romero et al., supra note 10, para. 45; Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas, supra note 10, paras. 91 and 95, and Case of Gómez Palomino, supra note 10, para. 50.