11 45. In this case, as in others,5 the Tribunal admits the probative value of the documents presented in a timely fashion by the parties, that were not disputed or objected, and whose authenticity was not questioned. 46. The statement given before notary public by the expert witness Reinaldo Calvachi Cruz (supra para. 26), pursuant to that stated by the President in his Order of March 18, 2005 (supra para. 25), was not objected (supra para. 28), for which this Court admits it as consistent with its object, and it assesses it along with the body of evidence, applying the rules of sound judgment. 47. The Court has reiterated that the parties must present to the Tribunal the evidence requested by the first, either documentary, testimonial, from experts, or of any other nature. The Commission, the State, and the representatives of the alleged victim and his next of kin must present all the evidence requested to facilitate adjudication of the case, so the Tribunal can have as many judgment elements as possible to know the facts and justify their decisions. Specifically, in the proceses on human rights violations, the State must present to the Tribunal the evidence that can only be obtained with their cooperation.6 48. Since they have not been contested by the parties, the Tribunal admits into evidence the documentation remitted by the State as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case, pursuant to that stated in Article 45(2) of the Rules of Procedure. 49. In the terms mentioned, the Court will weigh the evidentiary value of the documents presented to it. The evidence presented during the process has been brought together into a single body, considered a whole. VII PROVEN FACTS 50. Following its analysis of the evidence, the expert witness’ testimony, and the statements of the Commission and the representatives, the Court finds that the following facts have been proven: 50(1) Mr. Acosta Calderon, of Colombian nationality, was born on August 20, 1962 and was 27 years old when the facts occurred. He lived in Putumayo, Colombia and was dedicated to agricultural activities.7 Regarding the arrest and the criminal proceedings followed against Mr. Acosta Calderón 5 Cfr. Case of Caesar, supra note 1, para. 46; Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra note 2, para. 37; and Case of Lori Berenson Mejía, supra note 2, para. 77. 6 Cfr. Case of Tibi. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 83; Case of 19 Merchants. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109, para. 77; and Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez. Request for an Interpretation of the Judgment of Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. (Art. 67 American Convention on Human Rights). Judgment of November 26, 2003. Series C No. 102, para. 47. 7 Cfr. statement given on November 15, 1989 by Mr. Acosta Calderón before the Customs Military Police (dossier of annexes to the petition, annex 10, folio 106); and preliminary examination statement of October 18, 1991, given by Mr. Acosta Calderón before the Criminal Judge of Lake Agrio (dossier of annexes to the petition, annex 10, folio 146 and 147).