it cites as evidence, and it is possible to access it, neither legal certainty nor procedural balance is affected, because it can be located immediately by the Court and the other parties. 41 In this case, neither the parties nor the Commission contested or submitted observations on the content and authenticity of such documents. 38. Regarding the book “Maten a Gutiérrez, un crimen de la Aduana Paralela” presented by the representatives, which refers to events relating to this case, 42 the Court considers that this is a written work that contains statements or assertions made by its author for public dissemination. Thus, the assessment of its contents is not subject to the formalities required of testimonial evidence. However, its probative value will depend on whether it corroborates or refers to aspects related to the specific case. 43 Consequently, and since the State has not contested the contents of this book, the Court decides to assess it, taking into account the whole body of evidence and applying the rules of sound judicial discretion. 39. The Court observes that, together with their final written arguments, the representatives forwarded vouchers for litigation expenses related to this case. In this regard, the Court will only admit those vouchers that refer to costs and expenses presumably incurred following the presentation of the pleadings and motions brief. B.2. Admission of the statements and the expert opinions 40. The Court considers pertinent the statements and the expert opinions provided by affidavit and during the public hearing, only insofar as they are in keeping with the purpose that was defined by the President of the Court in the Order requiring them to be received (supra para. 8) and the purpose of this case. They will be assessed tougher with the other elements of the body of evidence. In addition, pursuant to the Court’s case law, the statements made by the presumed victims cannot be assessed in isolation, but rather within the whole body of evidence in the proceedings, because they are useful to the extent that they can provide further information on the presumed violations and their consequences. 44 VII FACTS http://www.infojus.gov.ar/index.php?kk_seccion=documento&registro=LEYNAC&docid=CPE%20C%20011179%20 1984%2012%2021) and the Code of Criminal Procedure of the province of Buenos Aires, text pursuant to Law 3589 (http://www.gob.gba.gov.ar/dijl/DIJL_buscaid.php?var=1334, http://www.gob.gba.gov.ar/legislacion/legislacion/l-3589.html), which, according to the representatives, were applied in the investigation opened into the facts of this case. They also provided the link to Law 12,059 and to Law 13,153 (http://www.gob.gba.gov.ar/intranet/digesto/PDF/l12059.pdf) (http://www.gob.gba.gov.ar/legislacion/legislacion/l-13153.html). 41 Cf. Case of Escué Zapata v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 165, para. 26, and Case of Vélez Restrepo and family members, supra, para. 63. 42 Cf. Daniel Otero, "Maten a Gutiérrez, un crimen de la aduana paralela", Editorial Planeta, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 1998 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, folio 2348). 43 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 72, and Case of Gomes Lund et al. (Guerrilha do Araguaia) v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 24, 2010. Series C No. 219, para. 55. 44 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 22, para. 43, and Case of Mendoza et al., supra, para. 54. 17