19 C) ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE Assessment of the Documentary Evidence 84. In this case, as in others26, the Court admits the probative value of those documents submitted by the parties at different stages of the proceedings, or as evidence to make a more informed decision, that have not been challenged and whose authenticity has not been questioned. The Court also accepts, pursuant to Article 43 of the Rules of Procedure, the evidence submitted by the parties with regard to supervening events occurring after the application had been filed. Assessment of the Testimonial and Expert Evidence 85. With regard to the statements made by two of the alleged victims in the instant case (supra para. 50), the Court admits them to the extent that they are consistent with the purpose of the questioning proposed by the Commission. In this respect, the Court considers that, because they are alleged victims and have a direct interest in this case, their statements may not be assessed in an isolated manner, but rather as part of the body of evidence of the proceedings. Regarding both merits and reparations, the statements of the alleged victims are useful insofar as they can provide better information on the consequences of the possible violations27. 86. Regarding the reports submitted by the expert witnesses (supra paras. 50 and 56), which were not challenged or questioned, the Court admits them and accepts their probative value. The Court has also taken into consideration the State’s comments of November 7, 2002 (supra para. 60), and the expert report of Máximo Jesús Atauje Montes. VI PROVEN FACTS 87. Having examined the documents, the statements of the witnesses, the reports of the expert witnesses, and the statements of the Commission, the representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin, and the State during this proceeding, the Court considers that the following facts have been proven: 88. GENERAL FACTS 88(a) On February 26, 1974, Decree Law No. 20530 entitled “Pension and Compensation Regime for Civil Service to the State not covered by Decree Law 19990” was promulgated28. 26 Cf. Cantos case, supra note 3, para. 41; Las Palmeras case. Reparations, supra note 3, para. 28; and El Caracazo case. Reparations, supra note 3, para. 57. 27 Cf. Cantos case, supra note 3, para. 42; El Caracazo case. Reparations, supra note 3, para. 59; and Trujillo Oroza case. Reparations, supra note 4, para. 52. 28 Cf. Decree Law No. 20530 “Pension and Compensation Regime for Civil Service to the State not covered by Decree Law 19990” of February 26, 1974 (file of appendices to the application, appendix 19, folios 78 to 85).