20 eligibility requirements with respect to indigenous and maroon villages, and the status of concessions awarded to Saramaka individuals; f) Richard Price, expert witness proposed by the Commission and the representatives, is a Professor of American Studies, Anthropology and History at the College of William & Mary as well as an authority on the history and culture of the Saramaka people. He provided his expert opinion regarding the Saramaka people's sustainable use of the land; the history behind the Treaty of 1762 between the Dutch crown and the Saramaka people; the alleged impact of the Afobaka dam on the Saramaka people and their traditional territory; the differences between the Saramaka people and other Maroon groups; the relationship between Saramaka customary law and Suriname’s legal system; the civil war in Suriname between the Maroons and the coastal government; the cultural significance of cutting timber as a traditional Saramaka activity; the alleged material, cultural and spiritual effects of logging operations by outside companies on the Saramaka people and territory; the presence of Surinamese troops in Saramaka territory, and the Saramaka people's social structure, traditional land tenure systems, and customary law, and g) Salomon Emanuels, expert witness proposed by the State, is a cultural anthropologist. He provided his expert opinion regarding, inter alia: the Saramaka hierarchy of authority, including the position and role of both the Gaa'man and the lös (clans); Saramaka procedures with respect to decisions on land rights involving the entire community, and relations between the local authorities of the Saramaka lös (clans). B) EVIDENCE ASSESSMENT 66. In the instant case, as in others,52 the Court admits and recognizes the evidentiary value of the documents submitted by the parties at the appropriate procedural stage, in accordance with Article 44 of the Court’s Rules of Procedure, which have neither been disputed nor challenged, and the authenticity of which has not been questioned. 67. Regarding the press documents submitted by the parties, the Court considers that they may be assessed insofar as they refer to public and notorious facts or statements made by State officials that have not been amended, or if they corroborate related aspects to the case that are proven by other means.53 68. With respect to the testimonies and expert opinions rendered by witnesses and expert witnesses, the Court deems them relevant insofar as they comport with their respective subject of testimony established by the Order of the President (supra para. 7), and taking into account all the observations of the parties. The Court considers that the statements made by the victims cannot be assessed separately, but rather within the context of the remaining body of evidence in this case, since they have a direct interest in the outcome.54 52 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 1998. Series C No. 42, para. 53; Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz, supra note 50, para. 41, and Case of Zambrano Vélez et al., supra note 50, para. 37. 53 Cf. Case of The “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al.), supra note 50, para. 75; Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz, supra note 50, para. 41, and Case of Zambrano Vélez et al., supra note 50, para. 38. 54 Cf. Case of Loayza Tamayo v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of September 17, 1997. Series C No. 33, para. 43; Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz, supra note 50, para. 44, and Case of Zambrano Vélez et al., supra note 50, para. 40.