29 101. Regarding the press releases submitted by the parties, those that have not been challenged, this Tribunal considers that they may have evidentiary value insofar as they refer to public and notorious facts or statements made by state officials or when they corroborate aspects related to the case44 and evidenced by other means.45 102. The representatives objected to the incorporation of several documents furnished by the State in its response to the petition for considering them irrelevant for the purpose of the case46. In such regards, the Tribunal decides to admit them into the body of evidence and assess them taking into account the observations made by the representatives in the body of evidence. As to appendix A.14, the Tribunal considers that the content of such annex does not adjust to the purpose of the proceeding; therefore, its admission into the body of evidence is irrelevant. 103. The Court shall assess the testimonies and expert opinions rendered by the witnesses and expert witnesses inasmuch as they adjust to the purpose defined in the President’s Order of March 18, 2008 (supra para. 11) and the purpose of the instant case (supra para. Said statements shall be analyzed in the corresponding chapter. In view of the fact that the alleged victims have a direct interest in the case, their statements shall not be assessed separately and but as a whole with the rest of the body of evidence of the proceeding,47 inasmuch as they are useful as long as they provide more information on the alleged violations and their consequences.48 104. Pursuant to the terms of Article 45(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court admits into the body of evidence the information and the documents presented by the State, requested by this Tribunal as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case (supra para. 7 and 14 in fine). 44 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Merits, supra note 33, para. 146; Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.). Merits, supra note 37, para. 75; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, supra note 20 para. 62; and Case Ticona Estrada v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 42. 45 Cf. Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 42, para. 59; Case of Yvon Neptune v. Haití, supra note 24, para 30; Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2007. Series C No. 172, para. 67. 46 In particular, they requested the Court to declare inadmissible: Press release published in the Venezuelan newspaper, “El Nacional”, dated April 16, 2002, which contained interviews with directors and representatives of several mass media (appendix marked as “A.8”); press release, original, published in the Venezuelan newspaper “El Nacional”, dated July 12, 2007 (appendix marked as “A.9”), identified as “Messages transmitted During the Lock-Out of 2002 and 2003”, which contain several messages transmitted by private mass media during the month of December, month in which it was carried out the “Lock-out by the political sectors of the opposition to the National Government (Appendix marked as “A.13”); CD that contains the presentation in Power Point format of the work entitled “The Way we are Manipulated by the Media?" (Cómo los medios nos manipulan?") prepared by the psychiatric Heriberto González Méndez (appendix marked as "A.14") and copies certified by the Instituto Autónomo Biblioteca Nacional y de Servicios de Biblioteca of a series of press Articles published in different newspaper with widespread circulation in Venezuela (appendices marked as “A.11”). 47 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Perú. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 43; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, supra note 20 para. 54; and Case of Ticona Estrada v. Bolivia, supra note 44, para. 37. 48 Cf. Case of “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.); Reparations and costs; supra note 36, para. 70. Case of Garcia Prieto et al. v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2007. Series C No. 168, para. 22; Case of Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2006. Series C No. 153, para. 59.