Inter-American Court of Human Rights
Download 3.09 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- VI Preliminary objections
| Assessment of the Testimony of Witnesses and Experts.
96. Concerning the testimony of the witnesses and the opinions given by the experts in the instant case at the public hearing held at the seat of the Court on May 3 and 4, 2004 (supra para. 54), the Court is admitting those statements and opinions to the extent that they fit the purpose of the proposed examination and were not contested or disputed. 97. As stated previously (supra para. 83), this Court deems that the statements made by the next of kin of the alleged victims, who have a direct interest in this case, cannot be evaluated separately; instead, they must be evaluated within the context of the body of evidence in the case. Both for the merits and for reparations the testimony of the alleged victims’ next of kin is useful to the extent that their testimony can provide additional information on the consequences of any violations that may have been committed. 98. The Commission had advised the Court that “after the witness María Zulia Giménez testified on the ‘fires and subsequent events at the Center […], the Commission […] learned that the witness Giménez is related by kinship to one of the representatives of the [alleged] victims.” The State, for its part, “[wa]s pleased to learn that the […] Commission had investigated and confirmed the existence of a kinship relationship between Zulia [G]iménez and one of the alleged victims’ representatives.” 99. The Court is admitting the testimony of Mrs. María Zulia Giménez to the extent that it serves the purpose defined by the President in the decision in which he ordered that testimony taken12 (supra para. 42). As it has in other cases, it will assess its content within the body of evidence as a whole, applying the rules governing reasoned judgment arrived at freely and on the basis of admissible evidence.13 100. The Court will, therefore, assess the evidentiary value of the documents, statements and expert opinions submitted in writing or presented in its presence. The evidence presented during the case has been combined into a single body of evidence, to be considered as a whole.14 VIPreliminary objections101. The State filed three preliminary objections, which are as follows: legal defect in the filing of the application; a failure to previously claim violation of Article 26 of the American Convention, and litis pendencia. * * *
Directory: docs -> casos -> articulos docs -> #17622 Relational Leadership: New Developments in Theory and Practice docs -> Leadership Development Programs and ecq-based Readings articulos -> Inter-American Court of Human Rights Case of Loayza-Tamayo v. Peru Judgment of November 27, 1998 articulos -> Inter-American Court of Human Rights Case of DaCosta Cadogan v. Barbados Judgment of September 24, 2009 articulos -> Inter-American Court of Human Rights Case of Albán-Cornejo et al v. Ecuador Judgment of August 5, 2008 articulos -> Inter-American Court of Human Rights Case of Baldeón-García v. Perú Judgment of April 6, 2006 casos -> Operation Condor casos -> Humberto antonio sierra porto and eduardo ferrer mac-gregor poisot case of the kali articulos -> Official summary issued by the inter-american court Download 3.09 Mb. Share with your friends:
|