of its factual basis (infra para. 52). Those documents will be assessed in the context of the body of evidence as a whole. 44. The Court finds it appropriate to admit the testimony and expert witness reports given in this case, as they meet the objectives defined by the President in the Order to receive them (supra para. 9). They will be examined in the corresponding chapter, together with the other elements of the body of evidence, taking into account the comments submitted by the State. 26 Pursuant to this Tribunal's jurisprudence, the testimony given by the alleged victims cannot be weighed in isolation. Rather, it will be examined together with the rest of the evidence in the proceeding, as it is useful because it can provide more information on the alleged violations and their consequences. 27 VII PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS A. Alleged victims. 45. In the application, the Inter-American Commission asked the Court to find a violation of Articles 5, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, to the detriment of Mr. Torres's “family members.” Likewise, it “br[ought]to the Court’s [...] attention that at the time the [R]eport on the merits was approved, it made a generic reference to the relatives of Iván Eladio Torres,” but that in addition, “the mother, María [Leontina] Millacura Llaipén, Iván’s sister, Fabiola Valeria Torres, his brother, Marcos [Alejandro] Torres [Millacura], and Ivan [Eladio Torres Millacura’s] niece, Evelyn Paola Caba, were mentioned as victims.” The Commission added that nevertheless, “following the approval of the [R]eport on the merits and in light of the practices existing at that time, the petitioners reported to the Commission of other relatives. Among them were his brotherin-law, Juan Pablo Caba, and two more nieces: Ivana Valeria Torres and Romina Marcela [Torres],” to which reason the Commission “add[ed]” their names to its application. 46. The representatives expressed that the Rules of Procedure of the Court “seem to limit its own capacity to interpret the [American Convention] by putting the ‘identification of the alleged victims]’ under the [Commission’s] authority. This consequently limits [the alleged victims] in their right to access the [Court’s] jurisdiction brief of pleadings, motions, and evidence, which must be duly individualized and identified, in accordance with Article 28(3) of the Court's Rules of Procedure.” (case file on the Merits, tome I, folio 605). The representatives submitted, for example, complete or almost complete tomes of the case file already submitted by the Commission to the Court, without specifying which documents they were submitting to the Tribunal. 26 The State expressed that in the statements rendered by affidávit by Miguel Ángel Sánchez and Tamara Elizabeth Bolívar “reference is made to facts and situations far from the specific purpose that they were asked to testify about, reason for which the State understood that considerations regarding the alleged strictly personal experiences referred to by both declarants should not be taken into account by the Court.” Moreover, it noted that the Statement of Mr. Marcos Alejandro Torres Millacura, the answer to the question regarding the work carried out by Mr. Iván Eladio Torres Millacura before October 2, 2003, lacked probative substance, a circumstance which “did not allow for its consideration as an element that could establish the reparatory claims of the petitioner.” Regarding the expert opinion rendered by Mr. Gastón Adrián Zoroastro, the State noted that he indicated that he had carried out “3 family interviews: one with the mother and daughter, with the mother and son, and another with the mother and both children,” but, nevertheless, upon continuation, made a separate reference to that stated by each one of the adults without going into detail on the situation of Fabiola Valeria Torres “given her advanced stage of pregnancy,” without specifying anything regarding the three nieces of Iván Eladio Torres Millacura. 27 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo V. Perú. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 43; Case of Vera Vera et al. V. Ecuador, supra note 17, para. 24, and Case of Chocrón Chocrón V. Venezuela, supra note 24, para. 34. 15