supervening facts and, in consequence, it determines that it is admissible and will refer to this in the chapter on Facts (infra paras. 125 to 129). C. Assessment of the evidence 77. Based on its consistent case law regarding the evidence and its assessment, 39 the Court will examine and assess the documentary probative elements forwarded by the parties and the Commission, the statements, testimony and expert opinions, and also the helpful evidence requested by the Court and incorporated into the case file, when establishing the facts of the case and ruling on the merits. To this end, it will abide by the principles of sound judicial discretion within the corresponding legal framework, taking into account the body of evidence and the arguments made in the case. 40 78. In addition, pursuant to the Court’s case law, the statements made by the presumed victims cannot be assessed separately but rather together with all the evidence in the proceedings, insofar as they may provide further information on the presumed violations and their consequences. 41 79. The statements, together with the information and documentation received during the on-site procedure, will be assessed based on the particular circumstances in which they were produced. 42 In this regard, the Court has incorporated into the case file the video with the images filmed by the State during the on-site procedure and forwarded this to the parties. 80. Regarding the documentation forwarded together with the parties’ observations on the visit, the Court will analyze this in keeping with the rules of sound judicial discretion and insofar as it complements the specific objectives of the visit. VIII FACTS 81. In this chapter, the Court will establish the facts of the instant case, based on the factual framework that the Commission submitted to it, taking into consideration the body of evidence, and the arguments of the representatives and the State. To this end, the facts will be described in the following chapters: (1) the Garifuna people in Honduras and the Punta Piedra Garifuna community; (2) the State’s recognition and titling of the territory of the Punta Piedra community; (3) the occupation of the territory titled to the Punta Piedra Garifuna community by inhabitants of the village of Rio Miel; (4) the steps taken to free the territory of Punta Piedra community of encumbrances; (5) the “Punta Piedra II” non-metallic mining concession, and (6) the complaints filed at the domestic level as a result of the conflict between the Punta Piedra community and the inhabitants of Rio Miel. Cf. Case of the” White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala, Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C, No. 37, paras. 69 to 76, and Case of Omar Humberto Maldonado Vargas et al., supra, para. 16. 40 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al), Merits, supra, para. 76, and Case of Omar Humberto Maldonado Vargas et al., supra, para. 16. 41 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C. No. 33, para. 43, and Case of Omar Humberto Maldonado Vargas et al., supra, para. 16. 42 Cf. Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and reparations. Judgment of June 27, 2012. Series C No. 245, para. 49. 39 22