21 69. Given its relevance to the adjudication of the present case and pursuant to Article 45(1) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, and upon a request made by the Commission, the Tribunal hereby incorporates into the present body of evidence the transcript of the expert opinion rendered by Dr. Richard Price during the public hearing held on July 7, 1992 in the case of Aloeboetoe et al. v. Suriname.55 70. The State objected to the statement provided by Mr. Peter Poole during the proceedings before the Commission because “[t]he research was done without the approval of authorities in Suriname.” Additionally, the State noted that it was not present at the March 2004 hearing before the Commission and that the items of evidence produced at the hearing were not sent to it. Thus, Suriname argued that said evidence should not be admitted in accordance with Article 44(2) of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. The State also objected to the statement made by Ms. Mariska Muskiet before the Commission, asserting that “this information was not submitted to the State during the proceedings before the Commission” and that “[Ms. Muskiet] does not qualify […] as an expert in the field of property law in Suriname and/or land rights of indigenous and maroons in Suriname.” The Tribunal observes that, although the State was not present when Mr. Poole and Ms. Muskiet testified during the Commission’s proceedings, both experts provided declarations during the proceedings before this Tribunal, and the State was afforded the right to defend itself and present observations to both declarations. Furthermore, Suriname failed to demonstrate why Ms. Muskiet, who is a university professor and teaches property law, is not qualified to provide expert testimony regarding Surinamese property law. Thus, the Court admits this evidence, taking into consideration the State’s observations, and will assess its probative value according to the rules of sound criticism and the body of evidence in the case. 71. In addition, the State objected to the statements made by Dr. Richard Price before the Commission, claiming that his declaration “is totally outdated”. The Court, however, admits this evidence, taking into consideration the State’s observations, and will assess its probative value according to the rules of sound criticism and the body of evidence in the case. 72. The Court observes that the State submitted further documentary evidence along with its additional written pleading pursuant to Article 39 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure. Specifically, the State presented documents identified as “Bulletin of Acts and Decrees of the Republic of Suriname –SB 2003 #07-”, “An Analysis of Land Rights of the Indigenous Peoples and Maroons in Suriname. Adoption of Legislation in Suriname by Amazon Conservation Team”, “Current status of timber concessions situated in the claimed area of the Saramaka Lö’s”, and “Transmigration”. Similarly, the representatives presented further documentary evidence with their observations to the State’s additional written brief, which included the 2004 Final Report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on indigenous peoples’ permanent sovereignty over natural resources, and excerpts of a March 2007 United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and United Nations Development Programme report. 73. The Court finds that the aforementioned documents submitted by the State and the representatives, which have not been challenged and the authenticity of which has not been questioned, are useful and relevant; therefore, the Court incorporates them into the body of evidence, pursuant to Article 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure. 55 Case of Aloeboetoe et al. v. Suriname. Merits. Judgment of December 4, 1991. Series C No. 11.