20 information.” In addition, it indicated that the expert witness “attempts […] to emit an opinion about what should be done in Panama from a Guatemalan perspective.” Nevertheless, the Court admits this evidence, to the extent that it relates to the purpose established in the Order of the Court (supra para. 65), bearing in mind the observations of the State, and it will be assessed in accordance with the rules of sound judicial discretion and the body of evidence in the proceedings. 76. The State challenged the written expert opinion of Carlos Manuel Lee Vásquez, because “it was not suitable to be considered expert evidence.” The Court, however, admits this evidence to the extent that it complies with the purpose established in the Order of the Court (supra para. 65), bearing in mind the observations of the State, and it will be assessed in accordance with the rules of sound judicial discretion and the body of evidence in the proceedings. 77. Furthermore, on January 8, 2008, the State presented a “petition and authenticated copy of Official Record No. 233 of November 30, 2007, issued by the Second Superior Court of Justice, as supervening evidence. The Court considers that this document, which has not been contested or its authenticity questioned, is useful and relevant; the Court will therefore incorporate it into the body of evidence, pursuant to Article 44(3) of the Rules of Procedure. 78. The representatives presented additional documentary evidence, together with their final written arguments. The Court finds that these documents, which have not been contested or their authenticity questioned, are useful and relevant, because they relate to the expenses corresponding to the processing and authentication of the sworn statements that were submitted. Consequently, the Court incorporates them into the body of evidence in the proceedings, pursuant to Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure. 79. With regard to the newspaper Articles submitted by the parties, the Court has considered that they can be assessed when they refer to well-known public facts, or statements by State officials that have not been modified, or when they corroborate aspects related to the case.31 80. The Court also adds to the body of evidence, in accordance with Article 45(2) of the Rules of Procedure, and because it considers that it is useful for deciding the case, the documentation requested by the Court as useful evidence (supra para. 78). 81. Having examined the probative elements that appear in the case file, the Court will proceed to analyze the alleged violations of the American Convention according to the facts that the Court considers have been proved, together with the arguments of the parties. 31 Cf. Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.), supra note 18, para. 75; Case of Yvon Neptune, supra note 24, para. 30, and Case of Salvador Chiriboga, supra note 6, para. 29.