-18disclosure would affect national security or national interest. There is a radical change in this regard, because the reasons are set out in the Constitution itself and are regulated by a law enacted by special quorum (the majority of elected deputies and senators). He referred to the legal recourses available to protect the right of access to public information. Currently, there are specific legal recourses in relation to access to administrative information, which do not extinguish and which allow the Administration’s classification of information to be discussed to determine whether it conforms to the legal reasons for refusing to provide information. He also referred to the disciplinary sanctions contained in the 1999 Probity Act, applicable to officials who refuse to provide requested information without a specific reason. Regarding the protection of the right of access to information, the citizenry has the following guarantees: the right to request access to information without cost, except for the respective photocopy; the right to contest refusal by regular administrative remedies; and the legislative requirement of a special quorum in Congress to establish restrictions to the right. C) ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE Assessment of the documentary evidence 50. In this case as in others,2 the Court accepts the probative value of the documents presented by the parties at the proper procedural opportunity or as helpful evidence, which were not contested or opposed, and whose authenticity was not questioned. Also, in accordance with Article 44(3) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court accepts the documents forwarded by the alleged victims’ representative on March 13, 2006 (supra para. 27), subsequent to the submission of the requests and arguments brief, as well as the Spanish version of one of these documents, presented on May 24, 2006 (supra para. 37), taking into account the State’s observations (supra para. 29) and assessing them together with the body of evidence. 51. Regarding the written statements made by the witnesses, Luis Sebastián Cox Urrejola, Arturo Longton Guerrero, Andrés Emilio Culagovski Rubio and Liliana Guiditta Macchiavelo Martini, and also by the expert witnesses, Claudio Francisco Castillo Castillo, Tomás Vial Solar, Miguel Ángel Fernández González and Davor Harasic Yaksic (supra paras. 26 and 27), the Court considers them pertinent, to the extent that they are in keeping with the purpose defined in the Court’s order requesting them (supra para. 23), taking into account the State’s observations (supra para. 29). On other occasions, the Court has admitted sworn statements that were not made before notary public, when this does not affect legal certainty or the procedural equality of the parties.3 2 Cf. Case of Ximenes Lopes. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149, para. 48; Case of the Ituango Massacres. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 112; and Case of Baldeón García. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 65. Cf. Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra note 2, para. 52; Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 2, para. 114; and Case of Baldeón García, supra note 2, para. 66. 3