22 of a national compensation plan and a program of psychological care. In some cases, medical and pharmacological care is also needed. The women who were raped must be consulted to see how this can be repaired. The expert witness recommended implementing special programs of psychological and medical care. C) ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE Assessment of the Documentary Evidence 39. In this case, as in others,13 the Court accepts the probative value of the documents presented by the parties at the proper procedural opportunity or as helpful evidence, that were not contested or opposed, and whose authenticity was not questioned. 40. The Court admits the statements made before notary public by Benjamín Manuel Jerónimo and Eulalio Grave Ramírez (supra para. 32(a) and 32(b)), as required by the President in the order of February 19, 2004, (supra para. 11), and assesses them with the body of evidence. The Court considers that, as they are victims who have a direct interest in the case, their statements must be assessed together with all the evidence in the proceeding and not in isolation. The statements of the victims are particularly useful insofar as they can provide more information on the consequences of the violations that may have been perpetrated against them.14 41. The Court admits the statements made before notary public by Luis Rodolfo Ramírez García and José Fernando Moscoso Möller (supra para. 32(c) and 32(d)), as required by the President in the order of February 19, 2004, (supra para. 11), and grants them probative value. 42. Regarding the attachments submitted by the victims’ representatives together with the final written arguments (supra para. 34), the Court considers them useful and observes that they were not contested or opposed, and their authenticity was not questioned. Consequently, it adds them to the body of evidence, in accordance with the provisions of Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure. 43. The Court considers that the written report presented by the expert witness, Nieves Gómez Dupuis, during the public hearing held on April 24, 2004 (supra paras. 17 and 33), is useful for deciding this case and observes that this document was not contested or opposed, and its authenticity was not questioned, consequently, it decides to add it to the body of evidence, in accordance with the provisions of Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure. 44. The Court incorporates the documentation remitted by the Commission, the representatives and the State as helpful evidence into the body of evidence, in accordance with the provisions of Article 45(2) of the Rules of Procedure. The Court notes that, with the helpful evidence, the representatives forwarded the birth certificate of Héctor Manuel García Mejicanos issued on November 4, 2004, by the Registry Office of the municipality of Rabinal, Department of Baja Verapaz, Guatemala, C.A. (supra para. 36), which they had not offered and the Court had not 13 Cf. Case of Tibi, supra note 3, para. 77; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 3, para. 80, and Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 3, para. 61. 14 Cf. Case of Tibi, supra note 3, para. 86; Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 3, para. 97, and Case of Ricardo Canese, supra note 3, para. 66.