18,314,64 and (d) comments of the State of Chile on the report on his July 2013 visit by the Special Rapporteur for the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism.65 2. Admission of the statements of presumed victims, and testimonial and expert evidence 69. As regards the statements of the presumed victims and the witnesses and the expert opinions provided at the public hearing and by affidavit, the Court finds them pertinent only insofar as they are in keeping with the purpose defined by the President of the Court in the order requiring them (supra para. 13). 70. Pursuant to the Court’s case law, the statements made by presumed victims cannot be assessed in isolation, but must be evaluated in the context of all the evidence in the proceedings, because they are useful to the extent that they can provide further information on the presumed violations and their consequences.66 On this basis, the Court admits the said statements, and they will be assessed in keeping with the criteria indicated. 71. Based on the above, the Court admits the expert opinions indicated, to the extent that they are in keeping with the purpose required, and will assess them together with the rest of the evidence and pursuant to the rules of sound judicial discretion.67 72. After the public hearing had been held, expert witness Claudio Fuentes Maureira forwarded a written version of the opinion he gave during this hearing, and the common interveners were given the opportunity to present their respective observations in their final written arguments if they deemed this pertinent. The Court notes that the said document relates to the purpose defined by its President for this expert opinion (supra para. 13), and admits it because it finds it useful for these proceedings; moreover, it was not contested, and no questions were raised as to its authenticity or truth. VI – FACTS 73. In this chapter, the Court, based on the body of evidence in these proceedings, will establish the main facts that it finds proved. Furthermore, in the chapters on merits it will examine the facts in further detail as necessary to assess the alleged violations. A) The presumed victims in this case 74. The eight presumed victims in this case are: Segundo Aniceto Norín Catrimán, Pascual Huentequeo Pichún Paillalao, Víctor Manuel Ancalaf Llaupe, Juan Ciriaco Millacheo Licán, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñán, Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia and Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles. They are all Chilean nationals. Seven of them are, or were at the time of the events of the case, traditional authorities or members of the Mapuche indigenous people, and the other is an activist working to defend the rights of this people. Criminal proceedings were held against them for events that occurred in 2001 and 2002 in 64 UN Doc. CCPR/C/CHL/CO/5/Add.1, 22 January 2009, Human Rights Committee, Consideration of reports presented by States Parties under Article 40 of the Covenant. Chile. Information provided by the Government of Chile on the implementation of the concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee, 21 October 2008, p. 7. 65 UN Doc. A/HRC/25/59/Add.3, 11 March 2014, Human Rights Council, Comments of the State of Chile on the Report of the Special Rapporteur for the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Ben Emmerson. Addendum, Mission to Chile. 66 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 43, and Case of Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname, para. 31. 67 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits, para. 43, and Case of J. v. Peru, para. 49. 23