19 56. As regards the documents requested by the Court based on Article 44 of the Rules of Procedure, which were presented by the parties (supra paras. 26 and 27), the Court incorporates them into the body of evidence in this case in application of the provisions of the first subparagraph of this norm. Likewise, the Report of the Commission for Historical Clarification, “Guatemala, memoria del silencio” (hereinafter the “CEH report”), the Report for the Recovery of the Historic Memory prepared by the Archdiocesan Human Rights Office, “Guatemala: Nunca más: los mecanismos del horror” (hereinafter the “REMHI Report”), the Agreement on a Firm and Lasting Peace between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Unidad Revolucionaria Nacional Guatemalteca of December 29, 1996, the Constitution of the Republic of Guatemala and the Code of Criminal Procedure in force at the time of the facts, are considered useful documentation in order to rule on this case, and are therefore added to body of evidence, in application of the provisions of Article 44(1) of the Rules of Procedure. Likewise, in application of the provisions of this article of the Rules of Procedure, the Court incorporates into the evidence, the five photographs presented by the witness, Daniel Robert Saxon, and the copy of the undated and unsigned document that contains photographs and information from different persons, the videocassette entitled “Declaraciones y otras noticias sobre el caso de Maritza Urrutia” [Statements and other information on the Maritza Urrutia case], and the 14 attachments to the final written arguments, submitted by the representatives of the alleged victim (supra paras. 21 and 24). 57. In view of the above, the Court will assess the probatory value of the documents, statements and expert report presented in writing or made before it. The evidence presented during all stages of the proceedings has been integrated into a single body of evidence, which will be assessed as a whole.27 VII PROVEN FACTS 58. Having examined the documents, the statements of the witnesses, the report of the expert witness and the statements of the Commission, the representatives of the alleged victim, and the State, the Court considers that the following facts have been proven. General facts 58.1. When the facts related to this case occurred, Guatemala was immersed in an internal armed conflict and had initiated the peace negotiations process between the Government of Guatemala and the Unidad Revolucionaria Nacional Guatemalteca (hereinafter “URNG”);28 58.2. During the negotiation process, among other initiatives, the Guatemalan Army undertook a series of actions to demoralize and weaken the position of the “enemy” factions (URNG). Among these actions, the Army conducted so-called psychological operations, during which they presented to the media alleged members of URNG, 27 Cf. Bulacio case, supra note 14, para. 68; Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 14, para. 60; and Las Palmeras case. Reparations, supra note 15, para. 34. 28 Cf. The Agreement on a Firm and Lasting Peace between the Government of the Republic of Guatemala and the Unidad Revolucionaria Nacional Guatemalteca (URNG) of December 29, 1996.