51 When judicial proceedings were still pending or still in progress, petitions of habeas corpus were never granted. The assumption was that the factual issue of failure to comply with deadlines was a problem of the system’s operation. However, in today’s Paraguay, three years is considered a reasonable period for proceedings to be completed. If not completed within that time frame, the defendants have to be released. It was and still is possible that a released juvenile might be returned immediately to prison or to the institution from which he was released, this time on a new charge. He may never have been actually free. So, in practice, there was a dual judicial system, one run by the police, who not only detained people but often released them in exchange for money or for political reasons. When the witness was attorney general, he received many complaints during his visits to the Center. The juveniles complained that part of their “ill-gotten gains” would end up in the hands of the police and that when they got out, if they didn’t follow the police’s orders, they would be sent back to prison. Proceedings and preventive detention could be ordered on the basis of a simple police report; in other words, a judge would institute proceedings and order immediate preventive detention simply on the word of the police. C) EVIDENCE ASSESSMENT Evaluation of the Documentary Evidence 80. In this case, as in others,39 the Court accepts the probatory value of those documents that were submitted by the parties at the appropriate procedural moment or as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case and which was neither disputed nor challenged and the authenticity of which was not questioned. 81. Regarding to the newspaper clippings, this Court has held that even though they are not documentary evidence proper, they may be assessed when they reflect publicly-known or notorious facts, statements of State officials, or when they corroborate facts established in other documents or testimony taken in the 40 proceeding. 82. As for the testimony and expert opinions given at the Office of the Chief Notary Public of the Government of Paraguay, like those given in the presence of a person with legal authority to authenticate documents (supra paragraphs 44, 45 and 46), this Court evaluates them in the body of evidence and admits them to the extent that they fit the purpose of the proposed examination, have neither been disputed nor objected to, and are not contradicted by the other evidence submitted in this case. 39 Cf. Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 26, para. 50; Case of the 19 Tradesmen, supra note 26, para. 73; and Case of Herrera Ulloa, supra note 29, para. 67. 40 Cf. Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, supra note 26, para. 51; Case of Herrera Ulloa, supra note 29, para. 71; and Case of Myrna Mack Chang. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 131 in fine.