8 26. As to the partial waiver of rights made by the representatives, the Court has noted that the rights waived had been claimed only by the representatives, who are the ones to waive them; that all parties agreed to such waiver by signing the “memorandum of agreement”; that Mr. Kimel explicitly expressed his consent to it; that it does not place him at any procedural or material disadvantage; that the purposes of this proceeding are not affected; and that the matters regarding which the waiver of rights has been made have been the object of the Court’s consideration in prior cases.12 Therefore, it has decided to admit the waiver of claims made by the representatives. 27. In light of the foregoing, the Court declares that the controversy regarding the facts alleged in relation to Articles 13, 8(1), 1(1), and 2 of the Convention and their legal effects has come to an end. The Court will now examine the chapter pertaining to the reparation measures which are appropriate in the instant case. 28. Finally, bearing in mind the powers vested in the Court as an international body for the protection of human rights, it deems it necessary to render judgment adjudicating on the issues of fact and the merits of the case and the effects thereof, as a way of contributing to redress the damage inflicted upon Mr. Kimel, to prevent that similar facts may happen again in the future, and in sum, to meet the aims of the Inter-American System for the protection of human rights.13 V EVIDENCE 29. According to the provisions of Articles 44 and 45 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as to the Court’s prior decisions regarding the evidence and the assessment thereof,14 the Court will now examine and assess the documentary evidence submitted by the Commission, the representatives, 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 written expert opinions and testimonies given at the public hearing, on the basis of sound judgment and in line with the applicable legal system.15 12 The Court has ruled on the independence and impartiality of the courts (Article 8(1) of the American Convention) in, inter alia, the following cases: Case of Castillo-Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52; Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71; Case of the 19 Tradesmen v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2004. Series C No. 109; Case of Lori Berenson-Mejía v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2004. Series C No. 119 and Case of Palamara-Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 135. As to the right to appeal the judgment before a higher court (Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention), the Court ruled on this matter in the Case of Herrera-Ulloa v. Costa Rica. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107. Finally, Article 25 of the Convention has been one of the most repeatedly examined by the Court in its prior decisions, in, inter alia, the following cases: Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua-Morales et al) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37; Case of Ivcher-Bronstein v. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74 and Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 2001. Series C No. 79. 13 Cf. Case of La Cantuta v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2006. Series C No. 162, para. 57; Case of the Rochela Massacre, supra note 10, para. 54 and Case of Bueno-Alves, supra note 11, para. 35. 14 Cf. 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; 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 and Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007. Series C No. 172, para. 63 . 15 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua-Morales et al), supra note 12, para. 76; Case of Cantoral-Huamaní and García-Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, para. 38 and Case of the Saramaka People, supra note 14, para. 63.