-27alleged violations and their consequences.11 41. The Court considers that the documents presented by the State attached to its brief of September 6, 2004 (supra para. 13) and to its final written arguments (supra para. 17) are helpful for deciding this case, particularly since they were not contested or opposed, and their authenticity was not questioned, so they are added to the body of evidence, pursuant to Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure 42. The State objected to the “Report [of the Ombudsman’s Office issued on September 2, 2004] on the forced disappearance of the children, Ernestina and Erlinda Serrano Cruz, its current impunity and the pattern of violence surrounding such disappearances,” which was submitted by this Office and by the representatives (supra para. 16). The Court considers this report helpful and will assess it within the body of evidence, applying the rules of sound criticism and taking into account the State’s observations. Accordingly, it is added to the body of evidence pursuant to Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure. 43. In the case of the newspaper articles submitted by the parties, the Court considers that, even though they are not documentary evidence, stricto sensu, they can be assessed to the extent that they refer to well-known public facts, or statements by State officials, or corroborate aspects of the instant case.12 44. Also, in application of the provisions of Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court incorporates into the body of evidence of this case the Constitutional Procedures Act promulgated on January 14, 1960, the Penal Code promulgated on February 13, 1973, and the Code of Criminal Procedure promulgated on October 11, 1973, since they are helpful for deciding this case. Assessment of the Testimonial and Expert Evidence 45. Regarding the statements made by the three witnesses proposed by the Commission and endorsed by the representatives and the four witnesses proposed by the State (supra para. 36), the Court accepts them to the extent that they correspond to the purpose that was defined by the President in the order of August 6, 2004, and assesses their probative value, taking into account the observations of the parties. In this regard, the Court considers that, since Suyapa Serrano Cruz is one of the alleged victims’ sisters and has a direct interest in the case, her testimony (supra para. 36) must be assessed together with all the evidence in the proceedings and not in isolation. For the reasons the Court has mentioned above (supra para. 40), this testimony is helpful in the instant case.13 46. In view of the foregoing, the Court will assess the probative value of the documents, statements and expert reports submitted in writing or made before it. The evidence presented during the proceedings has been incorporated into a single 11 Cf. Case of Lori Berenson Mejía, supra note 3, para. 78; Case of Carpio Nicolle et al., supra note 3, para. 71; and Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre. Reparations, supra note 3, para. 46. 12 Cf. Case of Lori Berenson Mejía, supra note 3, para. 80; Case of De la Cruz Flores, supra note 8, para. 70; and Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”, supra note 9, para. 81. 13 Cf. Case of Lori Berenson Mejía, supra note 3, para. 78; Case of Carpio Nicolle et al., supra note 3, para. 71; and Case of the Plan de Sánchez Massacre. Reparations, supra note 3, para. 46.