18 minor symptoms. Maritza was in a state of anguish which had appeared suddenly and this led to a syndrome of “reactive depression,” in other words, simultaneous depression and anguish, with serious emotional disturbance. The patient was sad, insecure and frightened of what might happen in future. Accordingly he concluded that the patient presented a syndrome of anguish with a reactive depression component. Psychological problems of an emotional type can lead to a state of exhaustion and cause more severe physiological problems if they are not treated in time. He recommended that Maritza should have a psychological examination and begin treatment with medication. Regarding her convalescence, he noted that if Maritza sought psychological help and support immediately, she could almost return to normality. He emphasized that if the cause of the psychological trauma had been resolved, the patient would have recovered more rapidly. C) ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE Assessment of the documentary evidence 52. In this case, as in others,25 the Court accepts the probative value of the documents presented by the parties at the proper procedural opportunity, that were not contested or opposed, and whose authenticity was not questioned. Pursuant to Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure, the Court also accepts the helpful evidence presented by the Inter-American Commission and the representatives of the alleged victim, because it considers it useful for the decision in this case. Assessment of the testimonial and expert evidence 53. Regarding the statement made by Maritza Urrutia in this case (supra para. 51(a)), which is credible, has not been challenged, and is supported by other elements, the Court accepts it insofar as it corresponds to the purpose of the questionnaire proposed by the Commission and the representatives of the alleged victim. In this respect, this Court considers that, as this is an alleged victim who has a direct interest in the case, her statements must be assessed together with all the evidence of the proceedings and not in isolation. In matters concerning merits and reparations, the statements of the alleged victims are useful insofar as they can provide more information on the consequences of the violations perpetrated.26 54. As regards the statements of the parents and brother of Maritza Urrutia and of Daniel Robert Saxon (supra paras. 51(b), 51.(c), 51(d) and 51(e)), this Court considers that they are admissible, they do not contradict each other, and they are supported by other probatory indications or elements; they are accepted insofar as they correspond to the purpose of the proposed questionnaire; and the Court assesses them among the whole body of evidence. 55. In relation to the report of the expert witness (supra para. 51(f)), which was not challenged or contested, the Court admits it and recognizes that it has probatory value. 25 Cf. Bulacio case, supra note 14, para. 57; Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 14, para. 45; and “Five Pensioners” case, supra note 14, para. 84. 26 Cf. Bulacio case, supra note 14, para. 66; Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 14, para. 57; and “Five Pensioners” case, supra note 14, para. 85.