28 respecting the principle of the presence of both parties.25 Regarding these expert opinions, in accordance with the request by the parties (supra 27), the Court applied its discretionary criterion to allow submission of statements or declarations in writing. As it has done previously,26 the Court will not consider this procedural item to be full evidence but will, instead, assess its content within the context of the body of evidence and applying the rules of competent analysis.27 63. With respect to the newspaper clippings, this Court deems that even though they are not documentary evidence proper, they may be assessed when they reflect publicly-known or notorious facts, statements of officials of the State, or when they corroborate what is set forth in other documents or testimony received during the proceedings.28 Thus, the Court includes them in the body of evidence as a means to establish the consequences of the facts of the case together with other evidence supplied, insofar as they are relevant. Assessment of the Testimonial Evidence and Expert Opinions 64. On February 27, 2003 the Inter-American Commission, after consulting with the representatives of the next of kin of the victim, requested, in light of the agreement signed by the parties, that only the testimony of Graciela Rosa Scavone, the victim’s mother, and the expert opinions of Graciela Guilis and Sofía Tiscornia be heard. The Commission also adjusted the object of their testimony to matters pertaining to reparations, because of the agreement for a friendly settlement (supra 27). 65. During the second public hearing (supra 27), the State declared that it “desist[ed] from the objections raised” regarding expert witness Sofía Tiscornia and the written statement of expert witness García Méndez in its March 5, 2003 brief. Likewise, it asked “[the] Honorable Court to grant the Government of the Republic of Argentina the opportunity to submit, also in writing, a report by an expert who will address the same subjects as expert witness Sofía Tiscornia” (supra 27). 66. The Court admits the statement by Graciela Rosa Scavone (supra 56.a) insofar as it is in accordance with the object of the examination proposed by the Commission. In this regard, the Court deems that being a next of kin of the victim and having a direct interest in this case, her statements cannot be assessed in an isolated manner, but rather within the context of the body of evidence of the proceedings. Regarding reparations, the testimony of the next of kin of the victim is useful insofar as they can provide additional information on the consequences of the violations that may have occurred.29 25 Cf., Juridical status and human rights of the child, supra note 4, paras. 132-133. 26 Cf., Las Palmeras Case, Reparations, supra note 5, para. 130; El Caracazo Case, Reparations, supra note 5, para. 60; and Castillo Páez Case. Reparations (Art. 63(1) American Convention on Human Rights). November 27,1998 Judgment. Series C No. 43, para. 40. 27 Cf., Juan Humberto Sánchez Case, supra note 4, para. 55; El Caracazo Case, Reparations, supra note 5, para. 60; and Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Case, supra note 5, para. 69. 28 Cf., Juan Humberto Sánchez Case, supra note 4, para. 56; Cantos Case, supra note 6, para. 39; and Baena Ricardo et al. Case. February 2, 2001 Judgment. Series C No. 72, para. 78. 29 Cf., Juan Humberto Sánchez Case, supra note 4, para. 57; “Five Pensioners” Case, supra note 4, para. 85; and Cantos Case, supra note 6, para. 42.