22 45. As for sworn statements not effected before a public official whose acts command full faith and credit by witnesses Yaqueline Reyes, Luisa Fernanda Gutiérrez-Reyes, Leydi Caterin Gutiérrez-Peña, Leonardo Gutiérrez-Rubiano, Sulma Tatiana Gutiérrez-Rubiano, Ricardo Alberto Gutiérrez-Rubiano and Carlos Andrés Gutiérrez-Rubiano, as well as by expert witness Iván González Amado, all of whom were proposed by the representatives (supra paras. 22 and 24), the Court admits them inasmuch as they are in accordance with the object set forth by the Order issued by the President on February 1, 2005 and assesses them as a whole with the the rest of the body of evidence, applying thereto the standards of reasonable credit and weight analysis, and taking into account the points made by the State. The Court on other occasions has admitted sworn statements not effected before a public official with authority to confer full faith and credit to the acts passed before him provided that legal certainty and the procedural equality between the parties are not impaired.8 As this Court has established, the statements of the alleged victims and their next of kin may provide useful information about the alleged violations and their consequences.9 In addition, the Court recognizes that, for reasons beyond their control, the representatives were not able to submit the statements of María Elena Soler de Gutiérrez and Paula Camila Gutiérrez-Reyes (supra para. 22). 46. The Court considers helpful for the adjudication of the instant case the documents submitted by the parties in their final written pleadings, inasmuch as they were not specifically disputed or challenged, nor was their authenticity or truthfulness questioned, thus preserving the right to an adversary procedure. Therefore, they are incorporated into the body of evidence pursuant to Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure.10 Testimonial and Expert Evidence Assessment 47. As regards the statements made by the witnesses and the expert witnesses proposed by the Inter-American Commission and by the representatives in the instant case (supra para. 42), the Court admits them inasmuch as they be in accordance with the purpose of the interrogatory established by the Court in its Order of March 10, 2005, and recognizes their evidentiary value, taking into account the observations filed by the State. In that regard, the Court will take into consideration such statements as a whole with the rest of the evidence produced by the parties. This Court considers that the statements by Wilson and Ricardo Gutiérrez-Soler cannot be assessed separately, for they are an alleged victim and his brother, both with an interest in the outcome of the instant case, but they must be assessed as a whole with the rest of the evidence within the body of the evidence in the case. 8 Cf. Case of YATAMA, supra note 3, para. 116; Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters, supra note 7, para. 39; and Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 84. 9 Cf. Case of YATAMA, supra note 3, para. 116; Case of the Indigenous Community Yakye Axa, supra note 7, para. 43; and Case of the Moiwana Community. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, para. 84. 10 Cf. Case of YATAMA, supra note 3, para. 118; Case of Fermín Ramírez, supra note 3, para. 52; and Case of Lori Berenson Mejía, supra note 7, para. 81.