21 . 78. Based on the stipulations of Articles 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as the jurisprudence of the Tribunal with regard to evidence and its assessment, 44 the Court will proceed to examine and assess the evidentiary elements included in the case file.45 A) Documentary, testimonial, and expert evidence 79. By agreement of the Presidency of the Court the statements offered before a notary public (affidavit) of the following witnesses and experts were received regarding the matters presented below. The issues regarding their statements will be presented, when appropriate throughout this judgment: a) Luisiana Ríos Paiva, alleged victims and witness proposed by the Commission, journalist of the RCTV. She testified, inter alia, regarding the facts occurred on December 17, 2001, January 20th, April 18th, May 2nd and 28th, 2002; regarding the complaint filed based on those facts and the consequences they have had on her personal life and professional performance. b) Pedro Nikken, alleged victim and witness proposed by the Commission and the representatives; he is a journalist and worked at RCTV between 2000 and 2004. He testified, inter alia, regarding the facts that occurred on November 12, 2002, August 19, 2003, and March 3, 2004; regarding the investigation thereof and the consequences they have had on his personal life and professional performance. c) Eduardo Guillermo Sapene Granier, alleged victims and witness proposed by the Commission and the representatives; he is the Vice-President of Information and Opinion of RCTV. He testified, inter alia, regarding facts occurred between 2001 and 2004 against journalists and employees of RCTV and, specifically, those occurred on April 13, 2002 and June 3, 2004 against the headquarters of RCTV. Likewise, with regard to the complaints filed based on those facts and the consequences they have had on his professional performance. d) Marcel Granier, witness proposed by the representatives; he is the President and General Director of RCTV. He testified, inter alia, regarding attacks suffered by journalists and employees of RCTV, as well as attacks against the headquarters of that television station and the effect of speeches of high State officials in the editorial line of RCTV. e) Armando Amaya, alleged victim and witness proposed by the representatives; he is a cameraman at RCTV. He testifed, inter alia, regarding facts of November 12, 2002, attacks against him and the consequences they have had on his personal life and professional performance. f) Anahís del Carmen Cruz Finol, alleged victim and witness proposed by the representatives; she is a reporter at RCTV. She testified, inter alia, regarding the Cf. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community V. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, para. 86; Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 25, 2001. Series C No. 76, para. 50; and Case of Bámaca Velásquez V. Guatemala. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 22, 2002. Series C No. 91, para. 15. Cf. also Case of the Miguel Castro Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006, Series C No. 160, paras. 183 and 184; Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. V. Chile, supra note 26, paras. 67, 68, and 69, and Case of Servellón García et al. V. Honduras. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 21, 2006. Series C No. 152, para. 34. 44 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 76; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. V. Colombia, supra note 29, para 49, and Case of Bayarri V. Argentina, supra note 38, para. 31. 45