7 * * * 34. The Court considers that the acknowledgment of international responsibility made by the State constitutes an important step towards the development of this process, the proper fulfillment of the Inter-American human rights jurisdictional function and, in general, the enforcement of the principles enshrined by the American Convention.14 35. Considering that there is a controversy over the arguments of law made by the representative (supra para. 7), and taking into account the powers vested in the Court for the protection of human rights, the Court considers that a judgment adjudicating on the issues of fact and on all the elements of the merits of the case, as well as on the consequences thereof, would contribute to redress the damage inflicted upon Mr. BuenoAlves and would help prevent similar facts from taking place in the future and, in sum, achieve the objectives of the Inter-American jurisdiction on human rights.15 VI EVIDENCE 36. Based on the provisions of Articles 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as on the Court’s case law regarding the evidence and the assessment thereof,16 the Court will now examine and assess the documentary evidence forwarded by the Commission, the representative, and the State at the different procedural stages or as evidence to facilitate the adjudication of the case as requested by the President, as well as the testimonial and expert statements offered through affidavits. In doing so, the Court will assess them on the basis of sound judgment, within the applicable legal framework.17 A) Documentary, Testimonial, and Expert Evidence 37. At the request of the President of the Court, the statements rendered before a notary public by the following witnesses and experts were admitted: a) Roberto Horacio Serrago: he rendered testimony on Mr. Bueno-Alves’ occupation and the prices usually charged for marble works, as well as on Mr. Bueno-Alves and his brother’s income from the marble business. b) Doctors Julio Alberto Ravioli, Fernando Emilio Taragano, María del Socorro Nievas, and Germán Schlenker: they evaluated the physical and mental or 14 Cf. Case of La Cantuta. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 56; Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 148, and Case of Vargas-Areco, Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, para. 65. 15 Cf. Case of La Cantuta, supra note 14, para. 57; Case of Vargas-Areco. supra note 14, para. 66; Case of Goiburú et al. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, para. 53, and Case of Servellón-García et al. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, para. 78. 16 Cf. Case of Almonacid-Arellano et al. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 154, paras. 66 to 69; Case of Servellón-García et al., supra note 15, paras. 32 to 35, and Case of Ximenes-Lopes. Judgment of July 04, 2006. Series C No. 149, paras. 42 to 45. 17 Cf. Case of La Cantuta, supra note 14, para. 59; Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison, supra note 14, paras. 182 to 185, and Case of Nogueira-Carvalho et al. Judgment of November 28, 2006. Series C No. 161, para. 55.