20 facts corresponding to the violation of the human rights of Jesús María Valle Jaramillo, Nelly Valle Jaramillo, and Carlos Fernando Jaramillo Correa […].” As it has on previous occasions, in application of the provisions of Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure,21 the Court incorporates into the body of evidence the statements and expert opinions indicated above, since the State took part in the proceedings during which they were provided and because the Court considers them useful for deciding the instant case. This evidence will be assessed in accordance with the rules of sound judicial discretion and together with the body of evidence in the proceedings. Also, in application of the provisions of Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court will transfer the facts that it has already accepted as proved in other judgments that are relevant and useful for deciding the present case. 59. Regarding the documents provided by the State at the public hearing (supra para. 8), the Court considers that they are useful and relevant and incorporates them into the body of evidence to be assessed in accordance with the rules of sound judicial discretion and together with the body of evidence in the proceedings. 60. On April 23, 2008, the representatives submitted additional documentary evidence consisting of two statements made by Francisco Enrique Villalba Hernández in February and March 2008 during a criminal action at the domestic level, which contain information presumably related to the instant case and, therefore, requested its incorporation into the body of evidence as supervening evidence (supra paras. 10). In this regard, the State indicated that these statements had not been corroborated or assessed by the prosecutor in charge of the case, and they did not comply with the requirements for evidence established in Article 44 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. Furthermore, they had not been subjected to an adversarial procedure at the domestic level. The State also questioned the validity of the statements, alleging that Mr. Villalba had little credibility. The Court finds that this documentary evidence complies with the formal requirements to be admitted as supervening evidence under Article 44(3) of the Rules of Procedure and incorporates it into the body of evidence in order to assess it, bearing in mind the objections raised by the State. 61. Also, on June 6, 2008, the State presented as supervening evidence the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice of April 1, 2008 (supra para. 13), which admitted the appeal filed by the Fifth Prosecutor of the National Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Unit against the judgment of the Superior Court of the Judicial District of Medellín of July 25, 2001, confirming the acquittal of Jaime Alberto Angulo Osorio and Francisco Antonio Angulo Osorio for the compound offenses of aggravated murder to the detriment of Jesús María Valle Jaramillo. The Commission considered that this supervening evidence “is admissible and illustrates the adoption of positive steps towards clarifying the facts and the eventual prosecution and punishment of at least some of those responsible.” Nevertheless, it insisted that this evidence “cannot be admitted by the Court in order to declare that the State has not violated the Convention” in the instant case. The representatives classified the new information as “time-barred, almost superfluous, because it merely informs the Court that some isolated procedural actions have been carried out that are far from being effective mechanisms to ensure that justice is done” in this case. The Court finds that this evidence complies with the formal requirements for admissibility stipulated in Article 44(3) of the Rules of Procedure and incorporates it into the body of evidence, considering it useful and 21 Cf. The “Mapiripán Massacre” v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 90; La Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 64, and The Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 123.