8 indigenous communities, particularly, that of the north of the district of Cauca, when facing the controversies over the territory. 24. As to the evidence furnished in the public hearing, the Court listened to the testimonies and expert’s opinions of: a) Etelvina Zapata Escué, witness proposed by the Commission. She declared, inter alia, on: The circumstances of the military raid in which his son, Germán Escué Zapata, was, allegedly, illegally tortured and executed; the obstacles faced by the alleged victim’s next of kin in their search for justice and the consequences for the family of the alleged victim, for the Indigenous Community of Resguardo de Jambaló and for the other surrounding indigenous communities, regarding the alleged violation of human rights suffered by her son; b) Myriam Zapata Escué, witness proposed by the Commission. She declared, inter alia, on: The consequences for the alleged victim’s next of kin regarding the violation of human rights suffered by his father. c) Flor Ilva Trochez Ramos, witness proposed by the representatives. She declared, inter alia, on: The alleged impact of the violation of the rights of Germán Escué Zapata and the related impunity on the members of the Indigenous Community of Resguardo de Jambaló and the Community in itself; the present situation of Resguardo de Jambaló when dealing with the alleged consequences of a period of time marked by violence against indigenous communities. d) Yolanda Prado Ruiz Redonda, witness proposed by the State. She declared, inter alia, on: The proceedings pertaining to the judicial preliminary stage for the death of Mr. Germán Escué Zapata and the facts and circumstances related to the events that occurred on February 1, 1988 in Vitoyó and Loma Redonda, and e) Gloria Lucy Zamora Patiño, expert witness proposed by the representatives. She declared, inter alia, on: The social and political organization of the Indigenous Paeces; the concepts of violence and impunity in such Community; the concept of Cabildo Governor of the territory and the consequences of the violation of the traditional values in such Community. B) Evidence Assessment 25. In the case at hand, as in many other cases,13 the Court admits the evidentiary value of such documents forwarded by the parties in the procedural stage that have not been disputed nor challenged, or its authenticity questioned. In relation to the documents forwarded as evidence to facilitate the adjudication of the case (supra, para. 10), the Court admits them into the body of evidence of the instant case, pursuant to the provisions of Article 45(2) of the Rules of Procedure. 26. The Tribunal notes that several of the documents mentioned by the parties in their respective briefs have not been submitted to the Court. These documents can be divided into three groups: a) documents not submitted to the Court that have an electronic link to 13 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago, para. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 80; Case of Bueno-Alves v. Argentina, supra note 9, para. 36, and Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 7, para. 55.