46 at a conclusion on the veracity of the facts alleged, taking into account the object and purpose of the American Convention.9 89. So as to obtain the greatest possible number of items of evidence, this Court has been very flexible in admitting and evaluating them, following the rules of logic and based on experience. A criterion which has already been mentioned and applied previously by the Court is non-formalism in evaluation of evidence. The procedure established for contentious cases before the Inter-American Court has its own characteristics that differentiate it from that which is applicable in domestic legal processes, as the former is not subject to the formalities of the latter. 90. For this reason, “competent analysis” and the non-requirement of formalities in admission and evaluation of evidence are fundamental criteria for its evaluation, as evidence is assessed rationally and as a whole. 91. The Court will now assess the value of the items of evidence tendered by the parties in the instant case. * * * 92. Regarding the documentary evidence tendered by the Commission and by the State, which was neither disputed nor challenged, nor were questions raised on its authenticity, this Court attaches legal value to that evidence and admits it into evidence in the instant case. 93. The documents “Awas Tingni. An Ethnographic Study of the Community and its Territory”, prepared by Theodore Macdonald in February, 1996; “Ethnographic expert opinion on the document prepared by Dr. Theodore Macdonald”, written by Ramiro García Vásquez, and several maps of the territory occupied by the Awas Tingni Community, were challenged as regards their content. The Court takes into account the various positions of the parties regarding said documents; nevertheless, the Court believes it useful to admit them into evidence in the present case. 94. Regarding the newspaper clippings tendered by the Commission, the Court believes that even though they are not properly documentary evidence, they can be appraised insofar as they reflect publicly or well-known facts, statements by highlevel State agents, or corroborate what is established in other documents or testimony received during the proceedings.10 95. The documents tendered by Marco Antonio Centeno Caffarena on November 21, 2000, at the public hearing, were assessed by the Court, and in its Order of November 24, 2000, this Court admitted into evidence, pursuant to article 44 of its Rules of Procedure, two of the eight documents he submitted (supra paras. 63, 64 and 79). 96. The document “General diagnostic study of land tenure in the indigenous communities of the Atlantic Coast”, prepared by the Central American and Caribbean 9 cfr. Ivcher Bronstein Case. Judgment of February 6, 2001. C Series No. 74, para. 69; “The Last Temptation of Christ” (Olmedo Bustos et al.). Judgment of February 5, 2001. C Series No. 73, para. 54; and Baena Ricardo et al. Judgment of February 2, 2001. C Series No. 72, para. 70. 10 cfr. Ivcher Bronstein case, supra note 9, para. 70; Baena Ricardo et al. case, supra note 9, para. 78; and Constitutional Court case, Decision of January 31, 2001. C Series No. 71, para. 53.