64. Based on the provisions of Articles 46, 47 and 50 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as on its case law concerning evidence and its assessment, 67 the Court will examine and assess the documentary probative elements forwarded by the parties on different procedural occasions, the statements, testimony and expert opinions provided by affidavit and during the public hearing before the Court, and the helpful evidence requested by the Court (supra para. 11). To this end, the Court will abide by the principles of sound judicial discretion within the corresponding legal framework. 68 A) Documentary, testimonial and expert evidence 65. The Court received different documents presented as evidence by the Inter-American Commission, the representatives and the State attached to their principal briefs (supra paras. 1, 5 and 6). In addition, the Court received the affidavits made by: the alleged victims Jennie Rosanna González Ramírez, Ernesto González Ramírez and Rhina Yokasta González Ramírez; the witnesses Luis Eduardo Lora Iglesias (Huchi Lora), Juan Bolívar Díaz, Manuel de Jesús de la Rosa, Guillermo Moreno García, Dante Castillo Medina and Francisco José Polanco, and also the expert witnesses Secundino Palacios, José Antinoe Fiallo Billini, Robert Salvador Ramos Vargas, Oscar López Reyes and Rafael Molina Morillo. With regard to the evidence provided during the public hearing, the Court heard the statements of the presumed victim Luz Altagracia Ramírez, the witnesses Mario Suriel Núñez and Eduardo Sánchez Ortiz, and the expert witness Federico Andreu Guzmán. 69 B) Admission of the evidence B.1) Admission of the documentary evidence 66. In this case, as in others, the Court grants probative value to those documents presented opportunely by the parties that were not contested or opposed, and the authenticity of which was not disputed. 70 The documents requested by the Court as helpful evidence (supra para. 11) are incorporated into the body of evidence in application of the provisions of Article 58 of the Rules of Procedure. 67. Regarding the newspaper articles presented by the parties and the Commission with their different briefs, this Court has considered that they can be assessed when they refer to well-known public facts or declarations by State officials or when they corroborate aspects related to the case. 71 The Court decides to admit those documents that are complete or that, at least, allow their source and date of publication to be verified and will assess them, taking into account all the evidence, the observations of the State, and the rules of sound judicial discretion. 67 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, paras. 69 to 76; and Case of Fleury et al. v. Haiti. Merits and reparations. Judgment of November 23, 2011. Series C No. 236, para. 12. 68 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.) v. Guatemala, supra note 67, para. 76, and Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2011. Series C No. 233, para. 15. 69 The purpose of all these statements were established in the Order of the President of the Court of June 3, 2011, which can be consulted on the Court’s web page via the following link: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/ asuntos/gonzalezmedina_03_06_11.pdf (last consulted February 27, 2012). 70 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 1, para. 140; Case of Contreras et al. v. El Salvador, supra note 12, para. 32, and Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela, supra note 12, para. 18. 71 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 18, para. 146, and Case of Fontevecchia and D’Amico v. Argentina, supra note 70, para. 14. 23