11 of liberty and torture, as well as of the lack of an appropriate judicial response to the alleged violations, and c) Susana Estela Quiroga, expert witness proposed by the representatives, who gave her expert opinion about the psychological consequences for the alleged victim of the alleged unlawful and arbitrary deprivation of liberty and torture, as well as of the lack of an appropriate judicial response. B) Assessment of the evidence 35. In this case, as in others,24 the Court admits the probative value of those documents presented by the parties at the appropriate procedural opportunity,25 which were not contested and the authenticity of which was not questioned. 36. The State contested part of the documentary evidence offered by the representatives in their pleadings and motions brief, because it “had never been forwarded to the Court.” The State alleged that “these are probative elements that were not forwarded to the State with the application, so that the State has been unable to submit any arguments concerning their existence, truth and admissibility.” The representatives indicated that this relates to evidence they forwarded to the Inter-American Commission to be incorporated into the case file before the Court. 37. Most of the contested evidence was submitted by the Inter-American Commission together with the application, in particular, in appendix 3, tome 8, thereof, and was duly forwarded to the State.26 The President requested the Inter-American Commission to provide those documents that the Commission had not forwarded with its application (supra para. 6), pursuant to Article 44(2) of the Rules of Procedure. 27 38. In relation to the newspaper articles forwarded by the parties at the appropriate procedural opportunity, the Court considers that they can be assessed when they refer to well-known public facts or statements made by State officials that have not been rectified, or when they corroborate aspects related to the case.28 24 Cf. Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140; case of Yvon Neptune, supra note 14, para. 29; and case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 10, para. 67. 25 According to Article 44 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure: 1. Items of evidence tendered by the parties shall be admissible only if previous notification thereof is contained in the application and in the reply thereto […]. 2. Evidence tendered to the Commission shall form part of the file, provided that it has been received in a procedure with the presence of both parties, unless the Court considers it essential that such evidence should be repeated. 3. Should any of the parties allege force majeure, serious impediment or the emergence of supervening events as grounds for producing an item of evidence, the Court may, in that particular instance, admit such evidence at a time other than those indicated above, provided that the opposing parties are guaranteed the right of defense. 4. In the case of the alleged victim, his next of kin or his duly accredited representatives, the admission of evidence shall also be governed by the provisions of Articles 23, 36 and 37(5) of the Rules of Procedure. 26 Cf. note of the Secretariat of the Inter-American Court REF.:CDH-11.280/001 of August 28, 2008 (merits file, tome I, folios 130 and 131). 27 28 Cf. case of Bayarri. Summons to a public hearing, supra note 1, twelfth operative paragraph. Cf. case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 24, para. 146; Case of Yvon Neptune, supra note 14, para. 30; and case of Heliodoro Portugal, supra note 10, para. 79.