11 c) Waldo Albarracín. Expert witness. Former Ombudsman of Bolivia. Expert opinion proposed by the Inter-American Commission. Referred to the difficulties in the judicial investigation of the human rights violations committed during the military dictatorship of Hugo Banzer Suárez and to the prospects for achieving justice in the present case, among other things. d) Claribel Ramírez Hurtado. Expert witness. Forensic Psychiatrist. Expert opinion proposed by the representatives. She gave her expert opinion inter alia, on the alleged psychological damage suffered by Rebeca Ibsen Castro, Tito Ibsen Castro, Raquel Ibsen Castro, and Martha Castro Mendoza, which was allegedly caused by the human rights violations claimed in the instant case. B. Assessment of the evidence 42. In this case, as in others,14 the Court admits the evidentiary value of those documents timely submitted by the parties that have been neither disputed nor challenged, nor have had their authenticity questioned. The Court admits into the body of evidence those documents requested by the Tribunal and submitted by the parties as evidence to facilitate adjudication of the case (supra paras. 8, 12 and 16), pursuant to the provisions of Article 47(2) of the Rules of Procedure. 43. In relation to the press documents timely submitted by the parties, this Tribunal considers that they may be assessed insofar as they refer to public and notorious facts or statements made by State officials, which have not been rectified, or when they corroborate aspects related to the case. Therefore, in the present case, the Court will consider those documents that are complete or in which, at least, the source and date of the publication can be verified.15 44. In their final written arguments, the representatives submitted several “supervening documents and photographs that, on one hand, refute the documentary evidence […] presented by the […] State of Bolivia with its final oral arguments and, on the other hand, demonstrate the inconsistency, precipitation, and improvisation of the State […] in taking compensatory measures […].” On one hand, the Court stablishes that some of the submitted documents refer to supervening events that occurred after the representatives’ presentation of the brief containing pleadings and motions (supra para. 4).16 However, the 14 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 140; Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 6, para. 50, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra note 6, para. 56. 15 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra note 14, para 146; Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 6, para. 55, and Case of Manuel Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, supra note 6, para. 66. 16 Certification of the Departamental Labour Office “Member of the COB”, of May 24, 2010; Order addressed to La Paz Mayor, of May 7, 2010; “Project of Postal Stamp”; Order addressed to Foreign Secretary of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, on May 2, 2010; Order of the Director General of Health Care of the Ministry of Health and Sports, MSyD/DGSS/SACP No. 425/10, of May 13, 2010; Order addressed to La Paz Mayor, May 20, 2010; Order of appointment of Physician Claribel Ramírez Hurtado as expert witness in the “criminal proceeding of the Public Prosecutor’s Office against Jorge Gutiérrez Roque et al.”, on January 15, 2010; Certificate of Records of Physician Claribel Ramírez Hurtado, issued by the Special Force against Crime, of May 12, 2010; Criminal Records Report of Physician Claribel Ramírez Hurtado, Judicial Registry of Criminal Records, May 5, 2010; and “Photograph book” of the “Ibsen Roundabout”.